This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 EUROCODE 4: DESIGN OF COMPOSITE STEEL AND CONCRETE STRUCTURES PART 1.1: GENERAL RULES AND RULES FOR BUILDINGS

DESIGNERS’ GUIDES TO THE EUROCODES

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 EUROCODE 4: DESIGN OF COMPOSITE STEEL AND CONCRETE STRUCTURES PART 1.1: GENERAL RULES AND RULES FOR BUILDINGS

R. P. JOHNSON and D. ANDERSON

Published by Thomas Telford Publishing, Thomas Telford Ltd, 1 Heron Quay, London E14 4JD URL: http://www.thomastelford.com

Distributors for Thomas Telford books are USA: ASCE Press, 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA 20191-4400 Japan: Maruzen Co. Ltd, Book Department, 3–10 Nihonbashi 2-chome, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 103 Australia: DA Books and Journals, 648 Whitehorse Road, Mitcham 3132, Victoria

First published 2004 Also available from Thomas Telford Books Designers’ Guide to EN 1990. Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design. H. Gulvanessian, J.-A.Calgaro and M. Holický. ISBN 0 7277 3011 8

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 0 7277 3151 3

© The authors and Thomas Telford Limited 2004 All rights, including translation, reserved. Except as permitted by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the Publishing Director, Thomas Telford Publishing, Thomas Telford Ltd, 1 Heron Quay, London E14 4JD This book is published on the understanding that the authors are solely responsible for the statements made and opinions expressed in it and that its publication does not necessarily imply that such statements and/or opinions are or reflect the views or opinions of the publishers. While every effort has been made to ensure that the statements made and the opinions expressed in this publication provide a safe and accurate guide, no liability or responsibility can be accepted in this respect by the authors or publishers Typeset by Helius, Brighton and Rochester Printed and bound in Great Britain by MPG Books, Bodmin

including other Eurocodes.g. also known as Eurocode 4. paragraphs.1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings Part 1. Some comments on clauses are necessarily out of sequence. respectively. subclauses. The numbering and titles of the sections in this guide also correspond to those of the clauses of EN 1994-1-1. This guide has an introduction which corresponds to the foreword of EN 1994-1-1. All cross-references in this guide to sections.2).1.1(2)). Chapters 10 and 11 correspond to Annexes A and B of the Eurocode. This implies correspondence with the subclause in EN 1994-1-1 of the same number.g.2: Structural Fire Design Part 2: Bridges. to help readers to find comments on particular provisions of the code. The first significant reference is in bold italic type (e. clauses. clause 1. and the other design Eurocodes. Some subsections are also numbered (e. There are extensive references to lower-level clause and paragraph numbers. . annexes. Aims and objectives of this guide The principal aim of this book is to provide the user with guidance on the interpretation and use of EN 1994-1-1 and to present worked examples. but use of the index should enable these to be found. Their titles also correspond. Basis of Structural Design. 1. is one standard of the Eurocode suite and describes the principles and requirements for safety. together with three annexes.Preface EN 1994. EN 1991.1. These are in strict numerical sequence throughout the book. figures. Actions on Structures. tables and equations of EN 1994-1-1 are in italic type. and Chapters 1 to 9 of the guide correspond to Sections 1 to 9 of the Eurocode. cross-references to and quotations from other sources. are in roman type). serviceability and durability of composite steel and concrete structures. Layout of this guide EN 1994-1-1 has a foreword and nine sections. It also provides background information and references to enable users of Eurocode 4 to understand the origin and objectives of its provisions. It is intended to be used in conjunction with EN 1990. which is also used where text from a clause in EN 1994-1-1 has been directly reproduced (conversely. Appendices A to C of this guide include useful material from the draft Eurocode ENV 1994-1-1. The guide explains the relationship with the other Eurocode parts to which it refers and with the relevant British codes. It is subdivided into three parts: • • • Part 1.

They thank the University of Warwick for the facilities provided for Eurocode work. their wives Diana and Linda for their unfailing support. other expressions have numbers prefixed by D (for Designers’ Guide). Basil Kolias. Joel Raoul. e.g. Anderson vi . Henri Mathieu. especially. and also to the Liaison Engineers. R. National Technical Contacts. Bernt Johansson. Karl-Heinz Roik and Jan Stark.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Expressions repeated from EN 1994-1-1 retain their number. equation (D6. Acknowledgements The authors are deeply indebted to the other members of the four project teams for Eurocode 4 on which they have worked: Jean-Marie Aribert. and. and others who prepared national comments. P. Michel Mele. Gerhard Hanswille. Jean-Paul Lebet. Johnson D.1) in Chapter 6.

5. Requirements 2. Scope 1. Principles of limit states design 2.2.4.2.4.2.2.4. Scope of Part 1. Definitions 1.1.3. Scope of Eurocode 4 1.5. Additional terms and definitions 1. Verification by the partial factor method 2.2.1.2.4.2. Concrete 3. .4. Chapter 3. Other reference standards 1. Verification of static equilibrium (EQU) Materials 3. Profiled steel sheeting for composite slabs in buildings 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 9 9 9 9 10 10 11 11 13 13 15 16 16 16 17 17 Introduction Chapter 1.4.4.2.1.3. Chapter 2. Design values 2. Stud shear connectors 3.2.5.1 of Eurocode 4 1.4.3. General 1.6. Assumptions 1.1.1.1.1.3.1. Symbols Basis of design 2. Distinction between principles and application rules 1.1.Contents Preface Aims and objectives of this guide Layout of this guide Acknowledgements v v v vi 1 General 1.2. Normative references 1.5. General reference standards 1. Structural steel 3. Combination of actions 2. General 3. Connecting devices 3. Reinforcing steel 3. Basic variables 2.1.

3–6.5. Chapter 6.1. Joint modelling 5.2.2.5.2.3.4.1.1.6. Basis 5.3. Scope 6. and to bending and vertical shear 6. Beams 6. Shear connection 6. with effective web 6.1.2: resistance to bending and vertical shear 6.3.1.2. Resistances of cross-sections of beams 6. Non-linear global analysis 5.2.4. Resistance to vertical shear Example 6.2. Methods of global analysis Example 5.6.4. Beams for buildings 6. Transverse forces on webs 6. Simplified verification for buildings without direct calculation Use of intermediate lateral bracing Flow charts for continuous beam Example 6.1. Profiled steel sheeting for composite slabs in buildings Structural analysis 5.2.4.2.4. Resistance of cross-sections of beams for buildings with partial encasement 6. Verification of lateral–torsional buckling of continuous composite beams with cross-sections in Class 1.1.2.1. Bending resistance Example 6.3. General 6.1.4.4.3. General 4.2.4. Calculation of action effects 5.1: effective width of concrete flange 5. Methods of analysis for buildings 5.1. Linear elastic analysis 5.3. Lateral–torsional buckling of composite beams 6.2. Imperfections in buildings 5.1. 2 and 3 for buildings 6.3.4.1: resistance moment in hogging bending.3.3: lateral–torsional buckling of two-span beam 6. Structural stability 5.1. Resistance to vertical shear.4.4.3. Imperfections 5. Resistance to bending 6. Structural modelling for analysis 5.1.2. Classification of cross-sections Ultimate limit states 6.1.2. General Example 6. viii .DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Chapter 4.2.5. Effective width for verification of cross-sections 6. Effects of deformed geometry of the structure 5. Rigid plastic global analysis for buildings 5.4: arrangement of shear connectors 19 19 19 21 21 21 21 22 22 23 24 24 24 27 27 29 29 33 34 36 37 41 41 41 43 43 44 50 54 55 57 57 57 57 58 58 58 61 63 64 66 66 67 67 69 Chapter 5.1. Linear elastic analysis with limited redistribution for buildings 5.4. Structural modelling and basic assumptions 5.2.3.1. Durability 4.

7.2. for a composite column 6.CONTENTS Longitudinal shear force in beams for buildings Headed stud connectors in solid slabs and concrete encasement 6.9: elastic resistance to bending. Detailing of the shear connection and influence of execution 6.4 Example 7.6: transverse reinforcement for longitudinal shear Example 6.2.8.6. Deflections 7.8. Simplified method of design 6.7.7.8. Vibration 7.5. ix . Longitudinal shear in concrete slabs Example 6.8. Serviceability limit states 7.2.4.6.8. Design resistance of headed studs used with profiled steel sheeting in buildings Example 6.3.3.6.3.8. General method of design 6. Shear connection and load introduction 6.3.1.6.3. Stress ranges 6.5: reduction factors for transverse sheeting 6.1: two-span beam (continued) – SLS Composite joints in frames for buildings 8.8.7. Design methods 8. Fatigue strength 6. General 7.2.1. General 6.2.4. Minimum reinforcement 7.6.1.4.10: composite column with bending about one or both axes Example 6.4.2.5.12: fatigue in reinforcement and shear connection Chapter 7. including modelling and classification 8.8: partial shear connection with non-ductile connectors Example 6.1. 70 70 72 76 76 81 82 84 100 101 103 103 105 105 111 113 113 118 119 119 119 120 120 121 122 123 124 127 127 128 128 128 130 131 131 132 134 135 136 141 141 142 144 145 147 Chapter 8.6. Fatigue assessment based on nominal stress ranges Example 6. Stresses 6. Partial factors for fatigue assessment 6.3.11: longitudinal shear outside areas of load introduction.7: two-span beam with a composite slab – ultimate limit state Example 6.4.8. Scope 8.5.4.1.4.1: end-plate joints in a two-span beam in a braced frame 6.1. General 6.7. Internal forces and fatigue loadings 6. General 7. Resistance of components Example 8. Control of cracking due to direct loading General comments on clause 7. Detailing provisions Example 6. Composite columns and composite compression members 6. Fatigue 6.7.7. Analysis. Deformations in buildings 7. Cracking of concrete 7.4. and influence of degree of shear connection and type of connector on bending resistance 6.3. Stresses 7.2.6.3. 6.

6.7.3.1. Longitudinal shear for slabs without end anchorage 9.3. Design criterion 9. Tests on shear connectors B.1. Stiffness of joint components in buildings A. Punching shear 9.7. Testing of composite floor slabs Example 11. General 9.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Chapter 9.7. Vertical shear 9. Annex A (Informative).2: the partial-interaction method Appendix A. Deformation of the shear connection Further comments on stiffness Example 10.7.1: m–k tests on composite floor slabs Example 11.8.1: two-span continuous composite slab 161 161 162 162 163 164 164 164 164 165 167 168 168 168 168 168 170 179 179 179 181 181 181 187 187 188 191 194 198 203 203 204 204 206 206 208 209 209 210 Chapter 10. Analysis for internal forces and moments 9.8. Cracking of concrete 9.3.3.2.5–9. Composite slabs with profiled steel sheeting for buildings 9.7. Verification of composite slabs for serviceability limit states 9.1.8. Annex B (Informative). Verification of composite slabs for the ultimate limit states 9. Flexure 9.2.7.5.7.1. Scope A.6. Longitudinal shear for slabs with end anchorage 9. The effect of slab thickness on resistance of composite slabs to longitudinal shear Summary The model 211 211 211 x .2. Verification of profiled steel sheeting as shuttering 9. Standard tests B. Actions and action effects 9.2. Stiffness coefficients A. Lateral–torsional buckling of composite beams for buildings Simplified expression for ‘cracked’ flexural stiffness of a composite slab Flexural stiffness of beam with encased web Maximum spacing of shear connectors for continuous U-frame action Top transverse reinforcement above an edge beam Derivation of the simplified expression for λLT Effect of web encasement on λLT Factor C4 for the distribution of bending moment Criteria for verification of lateral–torsional stability without direct calculation Web encasement Appendix B. Deflection Example 9. General B. Detailing provisions 9.4.1.2.1: elastic stiffness of an end-plate joint Chapter 11.4.

Simplified calculation method for the interaction curve for resistance of composite column cross-sections to compression and uniaxial bending Scope and method Resistance to compression Position of neutral axis Bending resistances Interaction with transverse shear Neutral axes and plastic section moduli of some cross-sections General Major-axis bending of encased I-sections Minor-axis bending of encased I-sections Concrete-filled circular and rectangular hollow sections Example C.CONTENTS The m–k method The use of test results as predictors Shape of function y(x) Estimate of errors of prediction Conclusion for the m–k method The partial-connection method Conclusion for the partial-connection method Appendix C.1: N–M interaction polygon for a column cross-section References Index 212 212 213 213 214 214 214 217 217 218 219 219 219 219 219 220 220 221 222 225 231 xi .

and are listed in the foreword to each Eurocode. in the clauses on National Annexes. and only background information essential to users of EN 1994-1-1 is given here. Similarly. and is for use 6 7 with the guide for EN 1992-1-1 and the guide for EN 1993-1-1. This Foreword contains clauses on: • • • • • • the background to the Eurocode programme the status and field of application of the Eurocodes national standards implementing Eurocodes links between Eurocodes and harmonized technical specifications for products additional information specific to EN 1994-1-1 National Annex for EN 1994-1-1. Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design. NDPs are also indicated by . It is the responsibility of each national standards body to implement each Eurocode part as a national standard. 1 Guidance on the common text is provided in the introduction to the Designers’ Guide to 2 EN 1990. most of which is common to all Eurocodes. this guide is one of a series on Eurocodes. the full text of the Eurocode and its annexes as published by the European Committee for Standardization (CEN). This will usually be preceded by a National Title Page and a National Foreword. Values. classes or methods to be chosen or determined at national level are referred to as Nationally Determined Parameters (NDPs). each generally consisting of a number of parts which are in different stages of development at present: EN 1990 EN 1991 EN 1992 EN 1993 EN 1994 EN 1995 EN 1996 EN 1997 EN 1998 EN 1999 Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures Eurocode 4: Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures Eurocode 5: Design of Timber Structures Eurocode 6: Design of Masonry Structures Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance Eurocode 9: Design of Aluminium Structures The information specific to EN 1994-1-1 emphasizes that this standard is to be used with other Eurocodes. The standard includes many cross-references to particular clauses in 4 5 EN 1992 and EN 1993. and may be followed by a National Annex. This will comprise. without any alterations. Each Eurocode recognizes the right of national regulatory authorities to determine values related to safety matters. 3 EN 1990 lists the following structural Eurocodes.Introduction The provisions of EN 1994-1-1 are preceded by a foreword.

Otherwise the National Annex may contain only the 8 following: • • decisions on the application of informative annexes. and of composite slabs to longitudinal shear. and references to non-contradictory complementary information to assist the user in applying the Eurocode. Other NDPs are values that may depend on climate. for the resistance of headed stud shear connectors. Each National Annex will give or cross-refer to the NDPs to be used in the relevant country. such as the free shrinkage of concrete. for example.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 notes immediately after relevant clauses. 2 . In EN 1994-1-1 the NDPs are principally the partial factors for material or product properties peculiar to this standard.

1.CHAPTER 1 General This chapter is concerned with the general aspects of EN 1994-1-1.1(2) emphasizes that the Eurocodes are concerned with structural behaviour and that other requirements. EN 1990 recommends values for load factors and gives various possibilities for combinations of actions. The material described in this chapter is covered in Section 1.10 The Eurocodes are concerned with design and not execution.1(3) lists the European standards for the execution of steel structures and the execution of concrete structures. For example. Scope of Part 1. Part 1. as this can cause inconsistency when one standard is revised before another. This results from the CEN requirement that a provision should not appear in more than one EN standard.5 Clause 1. are not considered. Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures9 and its National Annex.1.1. Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance. Eurocode 4 is also to be used in conjunction with EN 1991. account needs to be taken of EN 1998.1. in the following clauses: • • • • • • Scope Normative references Assumptions Distinction between principles and application rules Definitions Symbols Clause 1.1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. clause 1.1.2. buildings and bridges. thermal and acoustic insulation. to determine characteristic or nominal loads. When a composite structure is to be built in a seismic region. Clause 1. then . The basis for verification of safety and serviceability is the partial factor method. Scope of Eurocode 4 The scope of EN 1994 (all three parts) is outlined in clause 1.1. It is to be used with EN 1990. for example for the testing of welded stud shear connectors.1 of Eurocode 4 EN 1994-1-1 deals with aspects of design that are common to the principal types of composite structure.1.1. Clause 1. e.1.2 Clause 1. which is the head document of the Eurocode suite.1(2) Clause 1. Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design. but minimum standards of workmanship are required to ensure that the design assumptions are valid.1 Clause 1.1 Clause 1. The values and choice of combinations are to be set by the National Annex for the country in which the structure is to be constructed.1. Eurocode 4: Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures. The former includes some requirements for composite construction. For this reason.3 Clause 1. if the same rules for resistance to bending apply for a composite beam in a building as in a bridge (as most of them do).1.6 1.4 Clause 1.g.1(3) 1. Scope 1.

Bridges.8 (fatigue) is in Part 1. for moment–shear interaction and redistribution of moments) are applicable. Sections 5 and 8 concern connected members.1 cover the design of the common composite members: • • • • beams in which a steel section acts compositely with concrete composite slabs formed with profiled steel sheeting concrete-encased or filled composite columns joints between composite beams and steel or composite columns. The coverage in this guide of the ‘general’ clauses of Part 1. The omission of application rules for a type of member or structure should not prevent its use. The contents of Sections 1 and 2 similarly follow an agreed model. and the fundamentals of equilibrium and compatibility. to encourage the use of innovative design. includes further provisions that may on occasion be useful for buildings. This is a well-established form of construction.g. Those for Sections 1–7 are the same as in the other material-dependent Eurocodes.3(5). ‘Structural analysis’.1. provided that care is taken to prevent premature spalling of encasement in compression. where appropriate. guidance provided by or related to the worked examples may be relevant only to applications in buildings.g. except where noted otherwise.2 and 5. and many aspects of ‘mixed’ structures.2. The primary reason for its choice is improved resistance in fire. The web of the steel section is encased by reinforced concrete. A fully encased beam with shear connectors can usually be designed as if partly encased or uncased. This applies. Some omissions are deliberate. to: • • • • • large holes in webs of beams types of shear connector other than welded studs base plates beneath composite columns shear heads in reinforced concrete framed structures.1. if an isolated paragraph. e. The provisions of Part 1. Unbraced frames and sway frames are within its scope. based on specialized literature. for example. Clause 1. not a profiled section) composite box girders tapered or non-uniform composite members structures that are prestressed by tendons. is needed particularly for a frame that is not of ‘simple’ construction. such as those on: • • • • composite plates (where the steel member is a flat steel plate.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Clause 1. Section 5. and define imperfections.1 is relevant to both buildings and bridges.1. as used in tall buildings. the properties of materials. all rules that are for buildings only are preceded by a heading that includes the word ‘buildings’.11 This has been done even where most applications occur in bridges.1.4. Part 2.2(2) those rules are ‘general’ and must appear in EN 1994-1-1 and not in EN 1994-2 (on bridges). with a few additional provisions in Part 2. The provisions include the use of second-order global analysis and prestress by imposed deformations. and shear connection is provided between the concrete and the steel. 4 . clauses 5. For example.2(2) lists the titles of the sections of Part 1. Fully encased composite beams are not included because: • • no satisfactory model has been found for the ultimate strength in longitudinal shear of a beam without shear connectors it is not known to what extent some design rules (e. However.3. are placed at the end of the relevant clause.1 extends to steel sections that are partially encased. or. In EN 1994-1-1. clause 6. The scope of Part 1. and following the principles given in the relevant Eurocodes.

2.2. In its application to buildings.1. EN 1994-1-1 is based on the concept of the initial erection of a steel frame.2. additional to the normative provisions. These ‘dated’ references define the issue of the standard that is referred to in detailed cross-references.1. all of which are intended to be used as a package. Assumptions The general assumptions are those of EN 1990. all competing national standards will be withdrawn by around 2010. Designers who then seek guidance from national standards should take account of differences between the design philosophies and safety factors in the two sets of documents.2. may not be complete. 1.3. ‘Shrinkage of concrete for composite structures for buildings’. The placing of profiled steel sheeting or other shuttering follows. Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures. ‘Standard tests’ Annex C. are explained in the relevant chapters of this guide.1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings.2. The addition of reinforcement and in situ concrete completes the composite structure. replacement of national standards for products by EN or ISO standards is in progress. Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures. Formally.2. 5 . Distinction between principles and application rules Clauses in the Eurocodes are set out as either principles or application rules. The reasons for these annexes. As defined by EN 1990: • • • ‘Principles comprise general statements for which there is no alternative and requirements and analytical models for which no alternative is permitted unless specifically stated’ ‘Principles are distinguished by the letter ‘P’ following the paragraph number’ ‘Application Rules are generally recognised rules which comply with the principles and satisfy their requirements’. 1. with a time-scale similar to that for the Eurocodes. appear to repeat references in clause 1.2. It is intended that. and also in clause 1. 1. 1. which may include prefabricated concrete-encased members. or its National Annex. ‘Stiffness of joint components in buildings’ Annex B. General reference standards Some references here. EN 1992 and EN 1993. Other reference standards 1. Part 1. Eurocode 4 necessarily refers to EN 1992-1-1. GENERAL In addition to its nine normative sections.1. During the period of changeover to Eurocodes and EN standards it is likely that an EN referred to. Normative references References are given only to other European standards. EN 1994-1-1 includes three informative annexes: • • • Annex A. given later in EN 1994-1-1. The difference is explained in clause 1. the Standards of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) apply only if given an EN ISO designation. As Eurocodes may not cross-refer to national standards.4.CHAPTER 1. Commentary on them will be found in the relevant guides in this series. and to several parts of EN 1993. The presentation and content of EN 1994-1-1 therefore relate more closely to EN 1993-1-1 than to EN 1992-1-1. following a period of overlap. National standards for design and for products do not apply if they conflict with a relevant EN standard.

1.1 Clause 1. These lists of definitions are not exhaustive. Where the behaviour is essentially that of a reinforced or prestressed concrete structure. This applies to EN 1994-2 but not to EN 1994-1-1.3. applicable within that code. reference is made to the definitions given in clauses 1. is within the scope of EN 1994-1-1.5. according to EN 1990 ‘non-linear analysis’ includes ‘rigid plastic’.4. General In accordance with the model for Section 1.) Furthermore.3. This convention is not followed in EN 1994-1-1. Definitions 1.5).1 to 1. referring only to each other.5. Concerning use of words generally. global analysis should generally be in accordance with Eurocode 2. Many types of analysis are defined in clause 1. References from clause 1. ideally. The definition of ‘shear connection’ does not require the absence of separation or slip at the interface between steel and concrete. Separation is always assumed to be negligible. These arose from the use of English as the base language for the drafting process.1. The definition ‘composite frame’ is relevant to the use of Section 5. a clause cannot be a principle if it requires the use of another clause that is an application rule. 1.2 of EN 1992-1-1.2. EN 1992-1-1.5. which defines prestress as an action caused by the stressing of tendons.5.5. 1. The definitions in clauses 1. In particular: • • ‘action’ means a load and/or an imposed deformation ‘action effect’ (clause 5.6 of EN 1990.4.5.5.5. Prestress by jacking at supports.2(7) and A.4. The latter term refers to the treatment of material properties in structural analysis. 7. It is important to note that an analysis based on the deformed geometry of a structure or element under load is termed ‘second order’ rather than ‘non-linear’.5. the principles in all the codes should form a consistent set. Some symbols have more than one meaning. as this type of prestress is outside its scope. Clause 1. with only a few composite members. and EN 1993-1-1.5 of EN 1990. 9.5. effectively that clause also would become a principle.6. which is outside the scope of EN 1992-1-1. the particular meaning being stated in the clause.2 Most of the 13 definitions in clause 1. and may change over the years. Thus.4) and ‘effect of action’ have the same meaning: any deformation or internal force or moment that results from an action.5. Additional terms and definitions 1. there are significant differences from British codes.12 Each code has its own list. It has been recognized that a requirement or analytical model for which ‘no alternative is permitted unless specifically stated’ can rarely include a numerical value. and intelligible if all the application rules were deleted. This over-riding principle has strongly influenced the drafting of EN 1994.8. because most values are influenced by research and/or experience.g. (Even the specified elastic modulus for structural steel is an approximate value.3) does not include ‘rigid plastic global analysis’ (clause 5. in clauses 5. It follows that.2.9 of EN 1993-1-1 apply where they occur in clauses in EN 1993 to which EN 1994 refers. and the need to improve precision of meaning and to facilitate translation into other European languages. where the heading ‘Non-linear global analysis’ (clause 5.2 of EN 1994-1-1 include the word ‘composite’. Symbols The symbols in the Eurocodes are all based on ISO standard 3898: 1987.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 There are relatively few principles. 6 . None of them uses the word ‘steel’. but explicit allowance may need to be made for effects of slip. e. because all the codes use terms with precise meanings that can be inferred from their contexts.1 include clause 1.

‘acier’. definitions in EN 1994-1-1 have been aligned with those in EN 1990. Subscript ‘a’ is not used in EN 1993-1-1. GENERAL There are a few important changes from previous practice in the UK. based on the French word for steel. For example. an x–x axis is along a member. but γM. 7 .CHAPTER 1. and this usage is followed in EN 1994-1-1. with subscripts to denote elastic or plastic behaviour. with partial factor γS. and a section modulus is W. though the generic subscript for that material is ‘a’. a y–y axis is parallel to the flanges of a steel section (clause 1. Wherever possible. where the partial factor for steel is not γA. It is retained in EN 1994-1-1 for the nominal yield strength of structural steel. Some quite minor differences are significant. but this should not be assumed without checking the list in clause 1. The characteristic yield strength of reinforcement is fsk. EN 1992 and EN 1993. The symbol fy has different meanings in EN 1992-1-1 and EN 1993-1-1.6.7(2) of EN 1993-1-1).

This is why use of the partial factor method is given ‘deemed to satisfy’ status in clause 2. This distinction appears to have no consequences in practice.3. especially for bridges.2 Clause 2. the user of any other method would normally have to demonstrate.2. that the method satisfied the basic requirements of EN 1990. Secondary effects are to be treated as ‘indirect actions’.1(3) reminds the user again that design is based on actions and combinations of actions in accordance with EN 1991 and EN 1990.3. Clause 2.3 Clause 2.3 . Principles of limit states design The clause provides a reminder that the influence of sequence of construction on action effects must be considered. as these are determined by rigid plastic theory. for the use of EN 1994-1-1.3. Sections 2–4 and 6.1. but it does affect the resistances of beams in Class 3 or 4. Clause 2.1 of EN 1990).1(3) 2. respectively. It does not affect the bending resistance of beams that are in Class 1 or 2 (as defined in clause 5.5. to the satisfaction of the regulatory authority and/or the client. Clause 2.1 Clause 2. 2. Clause 2. Basic variables The classification of effects of shrinkage and temperature in clause 2.3. The use of partial safety factors for actions and resistances (the ‘partial factor method’) is expected but is not a requirement of Eurocodes. Requirements Design is to be in accordance with the general requirements of EN 1990. not as action effects. To establish that a design was in accordance with the Eurocodes.4 2.CHAPTER 2 Basis of design The material described in this chapter is covered in Section 2 of EN 1994-1-1. which are ‘sets of imposed deformations’ (clause 1. The purpose of Section 2 is to give supplementary provisions for composite structures.5) or the resistance of a composite column.1(3). in the following clauses: • • • • Requirements Principles of limit states design Basic variables Verification by the partial factor method The sequence follows that of EN 1990.3 into ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ will be familiar to designers of continuous beams. The method is presented in Section 6 of EN 1990 as one way of satisfying the basic requirements set out in Section 2 of that standard.

fck and fsk the conversion factors.3.4 Expression (6.1) where fck is the characteristic cylinder strength. It applies where characteristic properties and a single partial factor can be used. In terms of characteristic strengths.85Ac fcd + As fsd (6. Clause 2.2.1. on design resistances.0 in calibration of composite elements.3 refers to ‘product standards hEN’.6a).4.85 for concrete the partial factors γM. refers to expressions (6.. i).6c) of EN 1990 is Rd = Rk/γM. The ‘h’ stands for ‘harmonized’.4.e.30) In this case.6. Recommended values are given in Notes. Design would be more difficult if the factors for these materials in composite structures differed from the values in reinforced concrete and steel structures. not part of the preceding provision).1) The coefficient is explained by EN 1992-1-1 as taking account of long-term effects and of unfavourable effects resulting from the way the load is applied.3 Clause 2.1. in which an additional coefficient αcc is applied: fcd = αcc fck /γC (D2. so that there are no numerical values in the principles of clause 2. are 1. because uncertainties in areas of cross-sections are allowed for in the γM factors. which is Rd = R{(ηi Xk. for example. but a different value could be chosen in a National Annex. This term from the Construction Products Directive13 is explained in the Designers’ Guide to EN 1990.2(1) gives the plastic resistance to compression of a cross-section as the sum of terms for the structural steel.30) becomes: Npl.1.1. This possibility is not appropriate for EN 1994-1-1 because the coefficient has been taken as 1.6c) given in clause 6. This definition is stated algebraically because it differs from that of EN 1992-1-1. are responsible for setting safety levels. Rd = Aa fyd + 0.7.2) For example. i are γM. rather than characteristic or nominal values with partial factors.1.1). ad} i≥1 (D2. γC and γS.2 Clauses 2.2 Clause 2.1.1.4. The remainder of EN 1994-1-1 normally refers to design strengths. The design strength for concrete is given by fcd = fck /γC (2. not normative (i.0 for steel and reinforcement and 0.6a) and (6. The recommended value is 1.3.85Ac fck/γC + As fsk/γS in which: • • • the characteristic material strengths Xk.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 2.4.1 Clause 2.4. This process was adopted because the regulatory bodies in the member states of CEN. 10 .0. Rd = Aa fy /γM + 0.4. i are fy.3.2 illustrate the treatment of partial factors.4. Design values Clause 2.1.4. The Notes are informative. rather than CEN itself.3) 2.1. ηi in EN 1990.1.4. Resistances in EN 1994-1-1 often need more than one partial factor. reinforcing steel and structural steel to those recommended in EN 1992 and EN 1993. in expressions for the shear resistance of a headed stud (clause 6. clause 6. i /γM.5 of EN 1990.4. as explained earlier. The Notes also link the partial factors for concrete.1. and so use expression (6.4.2. in the hope of eventual convergence between the values for each partial factor that will be specified in the National Annexes.4. Verification by the partial factor method Clause 2. equation (6. (D2. from clause 2. there is no separate term ad based on geometrical data. concrete and reinforcement: Npl.1 and 2.4.

1: • • • • EQU.3.14 11 .2. for fatigue failure GEO. Combination of actions No comment is necessary.4.CHAPTER 2. This guide covers ultimate limit states only of types STR and FAT. where four types of ultimate limit state are defined in clause 6. for failure or excessive deformation of the ground STR. for loss of static equilibrium FAT.4. Use of type GEO arises in design of foundations to EN 1997. for internal failure or excessive deformation of the structure.4. Verification of static equilibrium (EQU) The abbreviation EQU appears in EN 1990. 2. BASIS OF DESIGN 2.

CHAPTER 3

Materials

This chapter concerns the properties of materials needed for the design of composite structures. It corresponds to Section 3, which has the following clauses: • • • • • Concrete Reinforcing steel Structural steel Connecting devices Profiled steel sheeting for composite slabs in buildings Clause 3.1 Clause 3.2 Clause 3.3 Clause 3.4 Clause 3.5

Rather than repeating information given elsewhere, Section 3 consists mainly of crossreferences to other Eurocodes and EN standards. The following comments relate to provisions of particular significance for composite structures.

3.1. Concrete

Clause 3.1(1) refers to EN 1992-1-1 for the properties of concrete. For lightweight-aggregate concrete, several properties are dependent on the oven-dry density, relative to 2200 kg/m3. Complex sets of time-dependent properties are given in its clause 3.1 for normal concrete and clause 11.3 for lightweight-aggregate concrete. For composite structures built unpropped, with several stages of construction, simplification is essential. Specific properties are now discussed. (For thermal expansion, see Section 3.3.)

Clause 3.1(1)

Strength and stiffness Strength and deformation characteristics are summarized in EN 1992-1-1, Table 3.1 for normal concrete and Table 11.3.1 for lightweight-aggregate concrete. Strength classes for normal concrete are defined as Cx/y, where x and y are respectively the cylinder and cube compressive strengths in units of newtons per square millimetre. All compressive strengths in design rules in Eurocodes are cylinder strengths, so an unsafe error occurs if a specified cube strength is used in calculations. It should be replaced at the outset by the equivalent cylinder strength, using the relationships given by the strength classes. Classes for lightweight concrete are designated LCx/y. The relationships between cylinder and cube strengths differ from those of normal concrete. Except where prestressing by tendons is used (which is outside the scope of this guide), the tensile strength of concrete is rarely used in design calculations for composite members. The mean tensile strength fctm appears in the definitions of ‘cracked’ global analysis in clause 5.4.2.3(2), and in clause 7.4.2(1) on minimum reinforcement. Its value and the 5 and 95% fractile values are given in Tables 3.1 and 11.3.1 of EN 1992-1-1. The appropriate fractile value should be used in any limit state verification that relies on either an adverse or beneficial effect of the tensile strength of concrete.

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

**EN 1992-1-1: fcd = accfck/gC
**

0.8x

x

**EN 1994-1-1: 0.85fcd, with fcd = fck/gC
**

0 Plastic neutral axis 0.0035 0 Compressive stress

Compressive strain

Fig. 3.1. Stress blocks for concrete at ultimate limit states

Values of the modulus of elasticity are given in Tables 3.1 and 11.3.1. Clause 3.1.3 of EN 1992-1-1 points out that these are indicative, for general applications. The short-term elastic modulus Ecm increases for ages greater than 28 days. The influence of this small change on the effective modulus is negligible compared with the uncertainties in the modelling of creep, so it should be ignored.

**Stress/strain properties The design compressive strength of concrete, fcd, is defined in clause 3.1.6(1)P of EN 1992-1-1 as
**

fcd = αcc fck/γC where

αcc is the coefficient taking account of long term effects on the compressive strength and of unfavourable effects resulting from the way the load is applied. Note: The value of αcc for use in a Country should lie between 0.8 and 1.0 and may be found in its National Annex. The recommended value is 1.

The reference in clause 3.1(1) to EN 1992-1-1 for properties of concrete begins ‘unless otherwise given by Eurocode 4 ’ . Resistances of composite members given in EN 1994-1-1 are based on extensive calibration studies (e.g. see Johnson and Huang15,16). The numerical coefficients given in resistance formulae are consistent with the value αcc = 1.0 and the use of either elastic theory or the stress block defined in clause 6.2.1.2. Therefore, there is no reference in EN 1994-1-1 to a coefficient αcc or to a choice to be made in a National Annex. The symbol fcd always means fck/γC, and for beams and most columns is used with the coefficient 0.85, as in equation (6.30) in clause 6.7.3.2(1). An exception, in that clause, is when the value of 0.85 is replaced by 1.0 for concrete-filled column sections, based on calibration. The approximation made to the shape of the stress–strain curve is also relevant. Those given in clause 3.1 of EN 1992-1-1 are mainly curved or bilinear, but in clause 3.1.7(3) there is a simpler rectangular stress distribution, similar to the stress block given in the British Standard for the structural use of concrete, BS 8110.17 Its shape, for concrete strength classes up to C50/60, and the corresponding strain distribution are shown in Fig. 3.1. This stress block is inconvenient for use with composite cross-sections, because the region near the neutral axis assumed to be unstressed is often occupied by a steel flange, and algebraic expressions for resistance to bending become complex. In composite sections, the contribution from the steel section to the bending resistance reduces the significance of that from the concrete. It is thus possible18 for EN 1994 to allow the use of a rectangular stress block extending to the neutral axis, as shown in Fig. 3.1. For a member of unit width, the moment about the neutral axis of the EN 1992 stress block ranges from 0.38fckx2/γC to 0.48fckx2/γC, depending on the value chosen for αcc. The value for beams in EN 1994-1-1 is 0.425fckx2/γC. Calibration studies have shown that this overestimates

14

CHAPTER 3. MATERIALS

the bending resistance of cross-sections of columns, so a correction factor αM is given in clause 6.7.3.6(1). See also the comments on clauses 6.2.1.2(2) and 6.7.3.6. Clause 3.1(2) limits the scope of EN 1994-1-1 to the strength range C20/25 to C60/75 for normal concrete and from LC20/22 to LC60/66 for lightweight concrete. These ranges are narrower than those given in EN 1992-1-1 because there is limited knowledge and experience of the behaviour of composite members with weak or very strong concrete. This applies, for example, to the load/slip properties of shear connectors, the redistribution of moments in continuous beams and the resistance of columns. The use of rectangular stress blocks for resistance to bending (clause 6.2.1.2(d)) relies on the strain capacity of the materials. The relevant property of concrete, εcu3 in Table 3.1 of EN 1992-1-1, is –0.0035 for classes up to C50/60, but is only –0.0026 for class C90/105.

Clause 3.1(2)

Shrinkage The shrinkage of concrete referred to in clause 3.1(3) is the drying shrinkage that occurs after setting. It does not include the plastic shrinkage that precedes setting, nor autogenous shrinkage. The latter develops during hardening of the concrete (clause 3.1.4(6) of EN 1992-1-1), and is that which occurs in enclosed or sealed concrete, as in a concrete-filled tube, where no loss of moisture occurs. Clause 3.1(4) permits its effect on stresses and deflections to be neglected, but does not refer to crack widths. It has little influence on cracking due to direct loading, and the rules for initial cracking (clause 7.4.2) take account of its effects. The shrinkage strains given in clause 3.1.4(6) of EN 1992-1-1 are significantly higher than those given in BS 8110. Taking grade C40/50 concrete as an example, with ‘dry’ environment (relative humidity 60%), the final drying shrinkage could be –400 × 10–6, plus autogenous shrinkage of –75 × 10–6. The value in ENV 1994-1-1 was –325 × 10–6, based on practice and experience. In the absence of adverse comment on the ENV, this value is repeated in Annex C (informative) of EN 1994-1-1, with a Note below clause 3.1 that permits other values to be given in National Annexes. In the absence of this Note, a design using a value from Annex C, confirmed in a National Annex, would not be in accordance with the Eurocodes. This is because normative clause 3.1.4(6) of EN 1992-1-1 takes precedence over an informative National Annex, and all variations in National Annexes have to be permitted in this way. In typical environments in the UK, the influence of shrinkage of normal-weight concrete on the design of composite structures for buildings is significant only in:

• • • very tall structures very long structures without movement joints the prediction of deflections of beams with high span/depth ratios (clause 7.3.1 (8)). There is further comment on shrinkage in Chapter 5.

Clause 3.1(3)

Clause 3.1(4)

Creep The provisions of EN 1992-1-1 on creep of concrete can be simplified for composite structures for buildings, as discussed in comments on clause 5.4.2.2.

3.2. Reinforcing steel

Clause 3.2(1) refers to EN 1992-1-1, which states in clause 3.2.2(3)P that its rules are valid for specified yield strengths fyk up to 600 N/mm2. The scope of clause 3.2 of EN 1992-1-1, and hence of EN 1994-1-1, is limited to reinforcement, including wire fabrics with a nominal bar diameter of 5 mm and above, that is, ‘ribbed’ (high bond) and weldable. There are three ductility classes, from A (the lowest) to C. The requirements include the characteristic strain at maximum force, rather than the

Clause 3.2(1)

15

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

Clause 3.2(2)

elongation at fracture used in past British standards. Clause 5.5.1(5) of EN 1994-1-1 excludes the use of Class A reinforcement in any composite cross-section in Class 1 or 2. The minimum ductility properties of wire fabric given in Table C.1 of EN 1992-1-1 may not be sufficient to satisfy clause 5.5.1(6) of EN 1994-1-1, as this requires demonstration of sufficient ductility to avoid fracture when built into a concrete slab.19 It has been found in tests on continuous composite beams with fabric in tension that the cross-wires initiate cracks in concrete, so that tensile strain becomes concentrated at the locations of the welds in the fabric. For simplicity, clause 3.2(2) permits the modulus of elasticity of reinforcement to be taken as 210 kN/mm2, the value given in EN 1993-1-1 for structural steel, rather than 200 kN/mm2, the value in EN 1992-1-1.

3.3. Structural steel

Clause 3.3(1) Clause 3.3(2)

Clause 3.3(1) refers to EN 1993-1-1. This lists in its Table 3.1 steel grades with nominal yield strengths up to 460 N/mm2, and allows other steel products to be included in National Annexes. Clause 3.3(2) sets an upper limit of 460 N/mm2 for use with EN 1994-1-1. There has been extensive research20–23 on the use in composite members of structural steels with yield strengths exceeding 355 N/mm2. It has been found that some design rules need modification for use with steel grades higher than S355, to avoid premature crushing of concrete. This applies to: • • • • redistribution of moments (clause 5.4.4(6)) rotation capacity (clause 5.4.5(4a)) plastic resistance moment (clause 6.2.1.2(2)) resistance of columns (clause 6.7.3.6(1)).

Thermal expansion For the coefficient of linear thermal expansion of steel, clause 3.2.6 of EN 1993-1-1 gives a value of 12 × 10–6 ‘per °C’ (also written in Eurocodes as /K or K–1). This is followed by a Note that for calculating the ‘structural effects of unequal temperatures’ in composite structures, the coefficient may be taken as 10 × 10–6 per °C, which is the value given for normal-weight concrete in clause 3.1.3(5) of EN 1992-1-1 ‘unless more accurate information is available’. Thermal expansion of reinforcement is not mentioned in EN 1992-1-1, presumably because it is assumed to be the same as that of normal-weight concrete. For reinforcement in composite structures the coefficient should be taken as 10 × 10–6 K–1. This was stated in ENV 1994-1-1, but is not in the EN. Coefficients of thermal expansion for lightweight-aggregate concretes can range from 4 × 10–6 to 14 × 10–6 K–1. Clause 11.3.2(2) of EN 1992-1-1 states that

The differences between the coefficients of thermal expansion of steel and lightweight aggregate concrete need not be considered in design,

but ‘steel’ here means reinforcement, not structural steel. The effects of the difference from 10 × 10–6 K–1 should be considered in design of composite members for situations where the temperatures of the concrete and the structural steel could differ significantly.

3.4. Connecting devices

3.4.1. General

Reference is made to EN 1993, Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures, Part 1.8: Design of Joints,24 for information relating to fasteners, such as bolts, and welding consumables. Provisions for ‘other types of mechanical fastener’ are given in clause 3.3.2 of EN 1993-1-3.25 Commentary on joints is given in Chapters 8 and 10.

16

Other methods of attaching studs.2 3. Clause 3.1(1) to be applicable. Welding – Studs and Ceramic Ferrules for Arc Stud Welding.6.7. such as spinning. Tolerances on embossments. Clause 3.1 and 9.1.7.4. as this clause and other provisions for composite slabs are not applicable to composite bridges.5. may not provide weld collars large enough for the resistances of studs given in clause 6.2.26 This gives minimum dimensions for weld collars. The materials for profiled steel sheeting must conform to the standards listed in clause 3.3.1. for composite slabs. Shear connection between steel and concrete by bond or friction is permitted only in accordance with clause 6. Such standards should include tolerances on embossments and indentations. Stud shear connectors Clause 3.2 refers to EN 13918.5. and clauses 9. The total thickness of zinc coating in accordance with clause 4.CHAPTER 3. and in EN 1994-1-1 is subject to National Annexes.5 17 . with a recommended minimum of 0.5.3.7.6. Any other method of connection must satisfy clause 6. MATERIALS Headed studs are the only type of shear connector for which detailed provisions are given in EN 1994-1-1.4. in clause 6.05 mm. provide guidance.2.3(2). for columns.1.4. as these influence resistance to longitudinal shear. 3. The minimum bare metal thickness has been controversial. given for test specimens in clause B.6.70 mm.2(3) is about 0. Profiled steel sheeting for composite slabs in buildings The title includes ‘in buildings’. There are at present no EN standards for the wide range of profiled sheets available.4. The use of adhesives on a steel flange is unlikely to be suitable.

EN 1992 and EN 1993.2.1. Clauses 4. in clause 2. a concrete floor of a multi-storey car park will be subject to the action of chlorides in an environment consisting of cyclic wet and dry conditions.2(1)P requires the corrosion protection to be adequate for its environment.2(3) is ‘sufficient for internal floors in a non-aggressive environment’. It corresponds to Section 4. This will not be possible for shear connectors. This implies that it may not provide sufficient durability for use in a multi-storey car park or near the sea. As an example. 4. the performance of the materials. require the designer to take into account 10 factors. and clause 4. which includes provisions for minimum cover. typically by 5 mm.4 of EN 1990.1 Clause 4.CHAPTER 4 Durability This chapter concerns the durability of composite structures.1.2 4. where special quality assurance is in place. Clause 4.2(1)P Clause 4. Section 4 of EN 1993-1-1 refers to execution of protective treatments for steelwork. These and the ‘acceptable deviations’ (tolerances) for cover may be modified in a National Annex.2 and 4. there is need for access for inspection and maintenance. General Almost all aspects of the durability of composite structures are covered by cross-references to EN 1990. the quality of workmanship and the intended level of maintenance.4. clause 4. For these conditions (designated class XD3) the recommended structural class is 4. A Note defines structural classes. Profiled steel sheeting for composite slabs in buildings For profiled steel sheeting.1 of EN 1992-1-1 define exposure classes and cover to reinforcement. The material-independent provisions. the design criteria. the particular protective measures. which has the following clauses: • • General Profiled steel sheeting for composite slabs in buildings Clause 4.2(3) . If parts will be susceptible to corrosion. These include the foreseeable use of the structure.5. This total of 55 mm can be reduced. Zinc coating to clause 4. Clause 4. the expected environmental conditions.4.1(2) of EN 1994-1-1 refers to clause 6.3 recommends an addition of 10 mm to the minimum cover to allow for the deviation.6. giving a minimum cover for a 50 year service life of 45 mm plus a tolerance of 10 mm.

1 Clause 5. The clause referred to says.1.2(2) – simple. which is aligned with and cross-refers to Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 wherever possible. for composite columns.1. The flow charts for global analysis (Fig.1.4. This separation of imperfections in frames from those in columns requires care. Clause 5. they are referred to here. It is generally more convenient.3. in effect.4. However. Clause 5. This is because its calculation for beams in buildings is dependent on the method used to determine the resistance to bending.1. rather than to include them in Sections 6 and 7.7. Joint modelling The three simplified joint models listed in clause 5.1.4 Clause 5.3 Clause 5.1(2) makes clear that this is the type of construction envisaged in Section 5. Where there are significant differences between these two sections. For composite slabs. therefore. 5. analyses for serviceability and ultimate limit states use the same methods. that models shall be appropriate and based on established theory and practice and that the variables shall be relevant.1(2) 5. including those for global analysis. The subject of joints in steelwork has its Clause 5.1.2 Clause 5. Composite members and joints are commonly used in conjunction with others of structural steel. Structural modelling and basic assumptions General provisions are given in EN 1990. continuous and semi-continuous – are those given in EN 1993. Structural modelling for analysis 5. are given in Section 9. all provisions.1) include relevant provisions from Section 6. Calculation of vertical shear is clearly ‘analysis’.5 Wherever possible.2(2) . but longitudinal shear is in Section 6. 5. It corresponds to Section 5. member analysis.2.CHAPTER 5 Structural analysis Structural analysis may be performed at three levels: global analysis.1. to specify them together in a single section. and receives detailed explanation after the comments on clause 5. The division of material between Section 5 and Section 6 (ultimate limit states) is not always obvious.1. and local analysis. This chapter concerns global analysis to determine deformations and internal forces and moments in beams and framed structures. though. methods of analysis and member imperfections are considered in clause 6. which has the following clauses: • • • • • Structural modelling for analysis Structural stability Imperfections Calculation of action effects Classification of cross-sections Clause 5.

The criteria for neglect of second-order effects given in clauses 5. All design methods must take account of errors in the initial positions of joints (global imperfections) and in the initial geometry of members (member imperfections). Structural analysis then requires prior calculation of the properties of joints. The provisions of EN 1993-1-8 are for joints ‘subjected to predominantly static loading’ (its clause 1.27 22 .1(2) of EN 1993-1-8. For each joint in the ‘simple’ model.2.2(3) own Eurocode part.4.1.1(2) of EN 1993-1-8). then elastic–plastic or rigid plastic global analysis is required. Structural stability The following comments refer mainly to beam-and-column frames. or in other literature. and assume that the global analyses will be based on elastic theory. which is covered in EN 1993-1-9 and in clause 6. Practice varies across Europe.4. With appropriate software increasingly available. has to be chosen. most joints in buildings are neither ‘simple’ (i.2. ‘Second-order’ analysis takes account of the deformations of the structure. This model is rarely applicable to bridges. the need for continuity of slab reinforcement past the columns.2. The exceptions.2(3) is ‘for buildings’. its provisions are modified and supplemented by Section 8 of EN 1994-1-1. Joints with some continuity are usually semi-continuous.2. pinned) nor ‘continuous’. 5.2.1. is appropriate for a wide range of joints with moment– rotation behaviours intermediate between ‘simple’ and ‘continuous’. the location of the nominal pin relative to the centre-line of the column. If the resistance of the joint is reached. except where they can be treated as ‘simple’ or ‘continuous’ on the basis of ‘significant experience of previous satisfactory performance in similar cases’ (clause 5.1(2)P and 5. They are applicable to wind loading on buildings. so the cross-reference to EN 1993-1-8 in clause 5. and a design resistance which may be ‘partial strength’ or ‘full strength’. Methods for second-order analysis are described in textbooks such as that by Trahair et al. ‘semi-continuous’.24 For composite joints. and neither EN 1993-1-1 nor EN 1994-1-1 gives values for nominal eccentricities. The analysis allowing for second-order effects will usually be iterative but normally the iteration will take place within the software. causes joints to transmit moments.5 are discussed later.2.5.3. but not to fatigue loading.1.1(3) In its clause 1. 5. It has a rotational stiffness.8. EN 1990 defines types of analysis.2(2) refers to clause 5.1.6. Clearly. The first two joint models are those commonly used for beam-to-column joints in steel frames.1.1. so much reinforcement and stiffening of steelwork are needed that the design becomes uneconomic. In reality. to control cracking.1(1)). and of residual stresses in compression members. Guidance may be given in a National Annex. The stage at which each of these is considered or allowed for will depend on the software being used. EN 1993-1-8. The third model. second-order analysis may always be applied. in clauses 5. which are a function of its loading. the joint is ‘semi-rigid’.2.1(3) need not be considered.4 and 5. which gives the terminology for the semi-continuous joint model.1 of EN 1993-1-8.2 to 5.3(1)) or experimental evidence. ‘First-order’ analysis is performed on the initial geometry of the structure. For the joint to ‘have no effect on the analysis’ (from the definition of a ‘continuous’ joint in clause 5.4.e. For composite beams. referred to from clause 8. 5. which leads to some complexity in clauses 5. of the effects of cracking of concrete and of any semi-rigid joints. second-order analysis is the most straightforward approach.2. the ‘nominal eccentricity’.1(2)P Clause 5.4.2.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Clause 5. This determines the effective span of each beam and the bending moments in each column. normally meaning less than or greater than the bending resistance of the connected beam. Effects of deformed geometry of the structure Clause 5. For elastic analysis. Clause 5.

2(5) of EN 1993-1-1 describes a method for frames.2(2) allows these to be determined by amplifying the results from a first-order analysis. that advanced software will be written for EN 1994 to account automatically for these effects.1).2(1) refers to clause 5. The overall lateral stiffness would probably be a conservative value.2. provided that the shear connection is in accordance with clause 6.2. though.4. applied to the whole of the loading.2. In general.6. such effects are dependent on the internal moments and forces. the check in clause 5.1(4)P is a reminder that the analysis needs to account for the reduction in stiffness arising from cracking and creep of concrete and from possible non-linear behaviour of the joints. Normally. it is assumed that the frame is perfect. This may be taken as the load factor at which bifurcation of equilibrium occurs. assuming that joints have zero rotational stiffness (resulting in simply-supported composite beams) could lead to neglect of the reduction in beam stiffness due to cracking. Clause 5. Methods of analysis for buildings Clause 5.2.2. as it is simpler to use the same software to account for the second-order effects due to the design loads. For a conventional beam-and-column frame. Clause 5. Further remarks on how this should be done are made in the comments on clauses 5. it is not considered necessary to account for slip (see clause 5. the useful principle of superposition does not apply. It follows that the check will only be valid if axial compression in beams is not significant. and the procedures are illustrated in Fig. An eigenvalue analysis then gives the factor αcr.2(2) 23 . This is because clause 5. in general. and first-order analysis can be used to determine these deflections. The check is done for a particular load combination and arrangement.2.2(6) are satisfied. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS A disadvantage of second-order analysis is that. The provisions in this clause are similar to those for elastic analysis in the corresponding clause in EN 1993-1-1. The designer may of course make assumptions. but clause 5.1. It is expected. αcr may also be determined by a second-order load–deflection analysis.2.2. 5. For example.1(3) provides a basis for the use of first-order analysis. Manual intervention may be needed.1(3) is not just for a sway mode.1(4)P 5. second-order effects are dependent on the nearness of the design loads to the elastic critical load. to adjust stiffness values before repeating the analysis. provided that the conditions in its clause 5. Clause 5.1(b)–(d). and elastic instability occurs.7. In an elastic frame. it is pointless to use this method. and that only vertical loads are present. Such members may be held in position against sway but still be subject to significant second-order effects due to bowing. it may well be found that this value of αcr is sufficiently high for first-order global analysis to be used.2. These are replaced by a set of loads which produces the same set of member axial forces without any bending.3.CHAPTER 5. usually at their maximum design values.2. assuming joints are pinned and beams are steel section only.2(1). This is the basis for expression (5. No further information is given.4. though. A more useful method for αcr is given in clause 5. clause 5. in which αcr is defined as ‘the factor … to cause elastic instability’.2. applicable to many structures for buildings. Fig. but this is not certain. Clause 5.2. This requires calculation of sway deflections due to horizontal loads only. 5.2.1(4) of EN 1993-1-1 for a simpler check. at which the total frame stiffness vanishes. Unlike the corresponding clause in EN 1993-1-1. It is assumed that any significant second-order effects will arise only from interaction of column forces with sway deflection. although care is needed to ensure these are conservative.2.4.2. To sufficient accuracy.1(3) Clause 5. 5.2.1(8)).2.1 is relevant not only to complete frames but also to the design of individual composite columns (see clause 6.2.3 and 8. and iteration is therefore required.4).1(e) illustrates the procedure.2. in a frame with stiff bracing it will be worth first calculating αcr. However. Even where second-order effects are significant.2(1) Clause 5. The non-linear load–deflection response approaches asymptotically to the elastic critical value.2.2. Using elastic analysis.

Usually.3.5.1(1)P lists possible sources of imperfection.2. with buckling formulae that take account of imperfections. Like the method just described for composite columns. Member imperfections are not accounted for in the global analysis. This applies also to local and shear buckling in beams.2.1(2) 5. a member analysis is performed subsequently.2. 5. an explicit treatment of geometric imperfections is required for composite frames.2(3) provides a convenient route for composite columns. to include composite members used in bracing systems and trusses. which allow for member imperfections. In clause 5. Further comments on clauses 5. 5.2(3) Clause 5.1(1)). Basis Clause 5.2.3.1(3) is a reminder that an explicit treatment of bow imperfections is always required for checking individual composite columns.1(4) leads to two alternative methods of allowing for imperfections in steel columns.2.2(5) Clause 5.2.2. In both EN 1993-1-1 and EN 1994-1-1 the effect of a bow imperfection on the end moments and forces may be neglected in global analysis if the design normal force NEd does not exceed 25% of the Euler buckling load for the pin-ended member (clause 5.3. but it can be assumed that this condition is satisfied by the Eurocode methods for checking resistance that include effects of member imperfections (see comments on clause 5. Clause 5.2. The codes define both global sway imperfections for frames and local bow imperfections of individual members (meaning a span of a beam or the length of a column between storeys). though. One method includes all imperfections in the global analysis. Clause 5. Clause 5.3.2(4) describes in general terms how the designer should then proceed. as illustrated in Fig.2(7) are made in the sections of this guide dealing with clauses 5.1(2)).1(2) Clause 5.2.3.2.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Clause 5. In both EN 1993-1-1 and EN 1994-1-1 the values are equivalent rather than measured values (clause 5. and clause 5. This may be by inclusion in the global analyses or in methods of checking resistance.1(3) Clause 5.2(6).2(3) to 5.1(a) illustrates how global and member analyses may be used.2(7) Clauses 5. The reference to EN 1993-1-1 in clause 5.4 and 6.7 generally requires a second-order analysis.2.1(1)P Clause 5.2.2.2. so imperfections in beams can usually be omitted from global analyses. for a plane frame including composite columns.3.3. as explained above.1. because the resistance formulae are for cross-sections only and do not allow for action effects caused by these imperfections.3. for example to determine the local moments in a column due to transverse loading. ‘compression members’ are referred to as well as columns. Imperfections Clause 5. A number of possibilities are presented. The most unfavourable geometric imperfection normally has the same shape as the lowest buckling mode.2. This can sometimes be difficult to find.3.2(7) concern the relationships between the analysis of the frame and the stability of individual members.2. Clause 5. the global analysis will not account for all local effects.2(6) Clause 5. no individual stability check is then necessary.3. If necessary.2(3) to 5.2) describe how these should be allowed for.1(4) Generally.2.2.3. because they allow for effects such as residual stresses. 5. The stability of each member is then checked using end moments and forces from that analysis. 6. in addition to imperfections of shape.2(5) refers to the methods of EN 1994-1-1 for lateral–torsional buckling.2. clause 5.3.2. Imperfections in buildings 24 .2).2.3.1(a).3. The alternative approach is that familiar to most designers.2.3. 6. Subsequent clauses (and also clause 5. Figure 5. because column design to clause 6. Normally the action effects at members’ ends are affected by the global sway imperfections but not significantly by the local bow imperfections.1(2) requires imperfections to be in the most unfavourable direction and form.2.2.1(1) Clause 5.2(4) Clause 5. If relevant software is available.7.3.2. The usual aim in global analysis is to determine the action effects at the ends of members.

3. more detail is given in Fig.2(5) and 5.36 Do second-order analysis for each column. for a beam-and-column type plane frame in its own plane. on methods of global analysis Is second-order analysis needed for global analysis? Yes No For each column. and the behaviour of joints. 5. using resistance formulae that include member imperfections (clauses 5.2. which refers to clause 5. and for global analyses in which allowances may be needed for creep.1(e).3.2.2(6) Use buckling curves that account for second-order effects and member imperfections to check the member (clause 6.2.7.2. estimate NEd. global analysis of a plane frame with composite columns Fig.1(2). ‘EC3’ means EN 1993-1-1 Determine appropriate stiffnesses.2.3. 5.3. 5. to Determine member imperfection for each column (to clause 5.7.2 of EC3.1(2) is not satisfied.3(2)) Were member imperfections for columns included in the global analysis? Yes No Is the member in axial compression only? No Yes Note: for columns. to clause 5.3.3. on creep Go to Fig.1(d). from clause 5.2. find l.3.1. making allowance for cracking and creep of concrete and for behaviour of joints Go to Fig. including member imperfections.1(c).5) (a) Flow chart.3.7.clause 5.CHAPTER 5.2. 6.2(6) Verify column cross-sections to clause 6. from clause 5. on cracking Go to Fig.1(b). with end actioneffects from the global analysis. 5.3) and where condition (2) of clause 5. include these these imperfections in second-order analysis Do first-order global analysis Do second-order global analysis Check beams for lateral–torsional buckling.2.2. 5.1(2)) Go to Fig. Global analysis of a plane frame 25 . on joints Note: These flow charts are for a particular load combination and arrangement for ultimate limit states. Neglect member imperfections (clause 5.3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS Determine frame imperfections as equivalent horizontal forces.3. cracking of concrete.6 or 6.2.7.

2 and EN 1993-1-8 (clause 5.2) and flexibility of joints (clause 8.2)) Determine rotational stiffness ((clause 8.4. cracking of concrete Can the joint be classified on the basis of experimental evidence or significant experience of previous performance in similar cases? (See EN 1993-1-8 (clause 5. stiffness of joints.7. for elastic global analysis only Fig.2. estimate the proportion of permanent to total normal force.2(11)) and determine a nominal modular ratio. For a combination of short-term and permanent loading. from clause 6.3. 5.4(2) (b) Supplementary flow chart. on use of a nominal modular ratio.2(11).2.4.2.3. eff (clause 6.4.2)) In the model for the frame. determine modular ratios n0 for short-term loading and nL for permanent loads. II.3 and EN 1993-1-8 (clause 5.3 (2)) and determine cracked regions of beams (c) Supplementary flow chart.3(3)? Yes Is the frame braced? Yes Are internal joints rigid? Yes Assume cracked lengths for beams (clause 5.2) Analyse under characteristic combinations to determine internal forces and moments (clause 5.3)) Is the joint nominally-pinned or rigid? Yes No Determine classification by stiffness (clause 8. assume an effective modulus (clause 5. estimate proportions of loading and determine a modular ratio n from n0 and nL For each composite column.7.1.3(3)) Assign appropriate stiffnesses for beams No No No Assume uncracked beams Make appropriate allowances for creep (clause 5.3.1(2)) Yes No Calculate initial rotational stiffness.2.7.2.4. ini (clause 8.3.2.2.2.4. apply? Yes For composite beams. creep Determine cracked stiffness for each composite column. (Contd) 26 . determine effective modulus Ec.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Does clause 5. n No For composite beams.3(4)). Annex B and EN 1993-1-8 (clause 6.2. and hence the design effective stiffness. (EI)eff. assign appropriate rotational stiffness to the joint (d) Supplementary flow chart. Sj.2. to clause 6.4 Do adjacent spans satisfy clause 5.1.3.2.4.

only cross-section properties are required for checking Clause 5. For global analysis of buildings.3. and permits these to be disregarded if the real horizontal forces (e.2. non-linear analysis and rigid plastic analysis.3. clause 5.3.2. In such cases.2.1 gives Clause 5.2. which gives the amplitudes of the central bow of a Clause 5.3(2) and 5.2.5. Member imperfections Clause 5.3.3.4. This gives values for the global sway Clause 5.3. Methods of global analysis EN 1990 defines several types of analysis that may be appropriate for ultimate limit states.4.3(2) in global analyses.4. For reasons of economy.1. but the designer has to decide on which side of the member the bow is present.1(4). plastic (rectangular stress block) theory is preferred for checking the resistance of cross-sections. It makes little difference whether the curve is assumed to be a half sine wave or a circular arc.2.1.2.2. If they are.3(1) refers to Table 6. EN 1994-1-1 gives four methods: linear elastic analysis (with or without redistribution). Determine the minimum value Is acr ≥ 10? Yes First-order analysis is acceptable No Second-order effects to be taken into account (e) Supplementary flow chart. describes how imperfections may be replaced by equivalent horizontal forces.1(1) allows the action effects to Clause 5. Assign appropriate stiffnesses to the structure.3.3.CHAPTER 5. 5.1 guidance on matters common to more than one method. Clauses 5.4.3(3) resistances.3(1) member designed as straight.3. (See Figs 5. choice between first-order and second-order global analysis Fig. Calculation of action effects 5.1.g.2 of EN 1993-1-1.2.1.4.1(4)).3(3) refer to member imperfections that need not be included Clause 5. due to wind) are significant relative to the design vertical load. (Contd) Global imperfections Clause 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS Determine appropriate allowances for cracking and creep of concrete and for behaviour of joints.4.2.1(b) to (d)) Is the structure a beam-and-column plane frame? Yes No Is axial compression in the beams ‘not significant’? Yes Determine acr by use of appropriate software or from the literature Determine acr for each storey by EN 1993-1-1 (clause 5. Clause 5. clause 5.1.1(1) 27 . These single-curvature shapes are assumed irrespective of the shape of the bending-moment diagram for the member.2(1) imperfections.2(1) refers to clause 5. 5.1.

Shear lag in concrete flanges. clause A.4. Clause 5.4.1. This is because shear lag has limited influence on the results.4. as stated in clause 5. for composite structures this method has the widest application.1(6). Figure 5.1.4.2(4) mid-span regions.1. 28 .1 is based on continuous beams.1. it is possible to ignore this in elastic global analysis (clause 5.2.1. There are several reasons28. the established values for composite beams have mainly been retained. Clause 5.4.4.1.1(5) and 5. In reality.4.4.2(4)).1(8) be determined by elastic analysis. clause 5.4. Clause 5. Although there are significant differences between effective widths for supports and Clause 5.1.4(2) gives an effective flexural stiffness for use in global analysis.1.4. Alternatively. shared by EN 1993-1-1. so values in codes have often been based on elastic values.1.4.4. Methods for satisfying the principle of clause 5.1(2) Clause 5.1(4) Clause 5.2(5) occupied by the shear connectors. it may be ignored (clause 5.4.3). It determines the available methods of global analysis and the basis for resistance to bending.1. In EN 1992-1-1.1.1.1. Clause 5.1. Linear elastic analysis is based on linear stress/strain laws.1.1.4. The classification system is defined in clause 5.1.4.1(1). There is no such incompatibility for Class 3 sections.2.4. cracking of concrete needs to be considered (clause 5.4. Clause 5. clause 6.30 This defines those situations in which the effects of shear lag and local buckling in steel plating can be ignored in global analyses.4.4.1.1(1) refers to it.2 does not define the effective flange width adjacent to an external column. which gives a general reference to EN 1993-1-5 (‘plated structural elements’).4.3 gives a method to account for deformation of the adjacent shear connectors. The values are generally lower than those in EN 1992-1-1 for reinforced concrete T-beams. This is the established method of taking account of local buckling of steel elements in compression. elastic analysis should be used. Although clause 8.2(8) is a reminder that Fig. the assumed distances between points of contraflexure are the same in both codes. or the width may be taken as the width occupied by slab reinforcement that is anchored to the column (see Fig.2 of EN 1993-1-1.1.4. They are increased both by inelasticity and by cracking of concrete.4.4.5.1(7) Clause 5.3. They are influenced by many parameters and vary significantly along each span.1(5) Clause 5.1(7) reflects a general concern about slip. the sum of the distances for sagging and hogging regions equals the span of the beam. The effective width is based on the distance between points of contraflexure.2(5) allows this width to be included within the effective region.1. A small difference from earlier codes for buildings concerns the width of steel flange Clause 5.2 The simplified values given in clause 5. To adopt those would often increase the number of shear connectors. points of contraflexure are dependent on the load arrangement.2 of EN 1994-1-1 are very similar to those used in BS 5950: Part 3.1(8) therefore permits internal moments and forces to be determined assuming full interaction.2(8) Clause 5. Clause 5. Without evidence that the greater effective widths are any more accurate. Composite beams have to be provided with shear connection in accordance with clause 6.4.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Clause 5. For the bending resistance of a beam.1.4.2.1. For composite joints.2).1. underestimates are conservative.1(6) Clause 5.1 may be used as a guide. and effective width Accurate values for effective width of an uncracked elastic flange can be determined by numerical analysis.29 why the apparent incompatibility between the methods used for analysis and for resistance is accepted. as resistance is based on an elastic model. clause 5. Other possible non-linear effects include the flexibility of semi-continuous joints (Section 8). Reference is made to the classification of cross-sections. EN 1994-1-1 therefore gives a larger effective width at an internal support.1. For Class 4 sections (those in which local buckling will occur before the attainment of yield). 5. and for shear lag in concrete in clause 5.1:199031 and BS ENV 1994-1-1:1994.2(9)). 8.1(2) makes clear that for serviceability limit states.1.7.4.6.1(4) are given for local buckling in clauses 5. In sagging regions.1(6) refers to clause 2.4. For composite columns. to reflect the critical load arrangement for this cross-section. but for composite structures.

for the support regions BC and DE.1: effective width of concrete flange A B C D E Fig. Values for beff are required for the mid-span regions AB and CD.4 0.5). but in many cases this can be estimated by simpler calculations.5 0.475 DE 4.025 × 6.85)] × 0.85 1. Creep and shrinkage There are some differences in clause 5.2 1. 5. not given in BS 5950.55 + (0.1.5.2 from previous practice in the UK.2 + [0. A continuous beam of uniform section consists of two spans and a cantilever.80 0. the short-term modular ratio. With Ea for structural steel given as 210 kN/mm2.1. The only exceptions are: Clause 5.8/0. as follows: beff = 0.2(11) allows the modular ratio to be taken as 2n0 for both short-term and long-term loading – an important simplification.40 0.2. 0.162 CD 7.0 0. 5. The calculation is shown in Table 5. Ecm.4 8 10 2 Example 5.55 + (0.2.2 29 . For composite beams in structures for buildings where first-order global analysis is acceptable (the majority).1(b) illustrates the procedure to allow for creep in members of a composite frame.2. Figure 5. is a function of the grade and density of the concrete. in clause 5.2. it ranges from 30 kN/mm2 for grade C20/25 to 39 kN/mm2 for grade C60/75.2) (m) Le /8 (m) be1 (m) be2 (m) beff (m) 6.875 0.4.4. The proportion of loading that is permanent could be obtained by a preliminary global analysis.2.4. are such that linear–elastic global analysis will often be used for composite frames.4) and (5.4 0.875 1.CHAPTER 5.85 1.562 0. The result for support A is found from equations (5.50 1.80 – 0. Effective width of the concrete flange of a composite T-beam Region AB Le (from Fig. The elastic modulus for concrete under short-term loading. 5.4. but the difference between them is so small that member ABCDE would be analysed as a beam of uniform section. For normal-weight concrete.45 BC 4.50 0.1.3. Worked example: effective width Table 5.2.4.8/0.562 1.4 0.4 0. given by n0 = Ea/Ecm.40 0.4.0 0.2.4)] × 0.23 5. thus ranges from 7 to 5.85 = 1. Linear elastic analysis The restrictions on the use of rigid plastic global analysis (plastic hinge analysis).10 Support A 6.23 m Global analysis may be based on stiffness calculated using the results for AB and CD.025 × 6. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS The notation and method used are those of clause 5. as shown in Fig. clause 5.4 + [0. and for the support at A.85 0.

If. The effect of type of loading is introduced by the symbol ψL in the equation nL = n0(1 + ψLϕt) (5.2(3) allows one mean value of t0 to be assumed. no alternative is given in Part 1. Suppose that normal cement is used for grade C25/30 concrete.2.2. respectively.1. This coefficient depends on both the age of the concrete on first loading.2(4) gives the age of loading by effects of shrinkage as 1 day. so the notional size is 200 mm. the modular ratio for use in analyses for the effects of long-term loading. Concrete is more susceptible to creep when young. for example. for three types of loading • • • structures where second-order global analysis is required by clause 5. It is increased to 1. From clause 5. and on the age at the time considered in the analysis. in Johnson and Hanswille. The increase in t0 from 14 to 60 days reduces the creep coefficient from 3. The creep multiplier ψL has the values 0.4.0. the values for normal-weight concrete are found from clause 3. 5.1. is typical of stress caused by the increase of shrinkage with time.0 to about 2. unpropped construction is used for floor slabs. t0. and that composite floor slabs with a mean concrete thickness of 100 mm are used. which is normally taken as ‘infinity’.2. so there is less creep than for the more uniform stress caused by permanent loads (line P). 0 S 1.2(6) are most unlikely to be found in buildings.4 of EN 1992-1-1.3.4.2.0 P ID 0 Time Fig.2. The top one. labelled S. Clause 5.4. Stress in concrete is reduced by creep less than it would be in a reinforced member. and is explained. It makes quite a difference whether this age is assumed to be (for example) 2 weeks or 2 months. than in buildings.1 and 1. 1. Only one side of the slabs is exposed to drying.4. so the curve is of type ID. clause 5.4.6) The reason for taking account of it is illustrated in Fig.2(11) do not apply. to the bending of steel beams by jacking before concrete is cast around one of the flanges.3. The effects of imposed deformations can be significantly reduced by creep when the concrete is young.2.5.33 30 .2(6) The ‘time-dependent secondary effects due to creep’ referred to in clause 5.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 sc/sc. for these three types of loading. this might be taken as the age at which they could be subjected to non-trivial imposed loads. This shows three schematic curves of the change of compressive stress in concrete with time. 5. These application rules are based mainly on extensive theoretical work on composite beams of many sizes and proportions.1 for composite members because the steel component does not creep.2 structures for buildings mainly intended for storage structures prestressed by ‘controlled imposed deformations’ – this would apply.2(2). that the building will be centrally heated. so there is more creep.1. The value for permanent loading on reinforced concrete is 1. with an example.32 and find application more in design of composite bridges.4. depends on the type of loading and the creep coefficient ϕt.55. but as these occur mainly in bridges. The use of this method is excluded for members with both flanges composite. Where the conditions of clause 5.2(3) Although clause 5. Time-dependent compressive stress in concrete. These are likely to be construction loads.2. Their calculation is quite complex.4. Clause 5. so ‘inside conditions’ apply. for example. nL.

2(9) refers to clause 6. the first step is to determine the expected extent of cracking in beams. where cracking occurs in both hogging and sagging bending.2. being a permanent effect.2. Clause 5. EN 1994-1-1 provides several different methods to allow for cracking in beams. Shrinkage of concrete For the determination of shrinkage strain. This is because its scope is both ‘general’ and ‘buildings’.4.4. even though the secondary hogging bending moments at internal supports are then higher.4. Clause 5. which increase at internal supports and reduce at end supports.2(7) beam with all cross-sections in Class 1 or 2. This is unlike analysis of reinforced concrete structures. a further method is given separately in clause 5.2. assuming uncracked sections and including long-term effects. unless its resistance to bending is reduced by lateral–torsional buckling. The effects in columns are unimportant. on creep of concrete. In the example above.1.1. This is its ‘primary effect’. respectively. reference should be made to the commentary on clause 3. the primary curvature is incompatible with the levels of the supports.34 This complicates the determination of the secondary effects.4 of EN 1992-1-1 gives ϕt = 5.4.CHAPTER 5.4. clause 3.3. The section is assumed to crack if the extreme-fibre tensile stress in concrete exceeds twice the mean value of the axial tensile strength given by EN 1992-1-1. The long-term effects of shrinkage are significantly reduced by creep.3(4).3(2) method.2.55 × 5) = 3.3 is applicable to both serviceability and ultimate limit states.2. shrinkage causes sagging curvature.6) gives the modular ratio as: n = n0(1 + 0. The influence of shrinkage on serviceability verifications is dealt with in Chapter 7.2.2. In the general method.3 illustrates the procedure. assuming that the ratio of permanent to total load is 1. The envelope of moments and shears is calculated for characteristic combinations of actions. ϕt = 3 for t0 = 14 days.2. which in turn refers to an effective modulus for concrete given in clause 6.4. This is followed in clause 5.4.3(2) provides a general Clause 5.4.2. and equation (5.1. The cracked stiffness is then adopted for such sections. It is counteracted by bending moments caused by changes in the support reactions. For shrinkage. and the beam then has a non-uniform section.4.2(8) the option of neglecting primary curvature in cracked regions. This requires the beams with cracked regions to be treated as beams of non-uniform section. If separate analyses are to be made for long-term and short-term effects. with t0 = 1 day.1(c) Clause 5. Figure 5.3(4) can be used. These moments.3. The change in relative stiffness needs to be taken into account in elastic global analysis. clause 5.4.7.0 and 0. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS For creep in columns. In beams with the slab above the steel member.4(2).2(7) allows both types of effect to be neglected at ultimate limit states in a Clause 5.4. In continuous beams. This restriction can be significant.2(8) allows Clause 5. Clause 5. 31 . but not in sagging regions.4.7n0 Where it is necessary to consider shrinkage effects within the first year or so after casting. except in very tall structures. In conventional composite beams with the slab above the steel section. which is reduced almost to zero where the concrete slab is cracked through its thickness.4(6) of EN 1992-1-1. Clause 5. The moments and the associated shear forces are the ‘secondary effects’ of shrinkage. a value for the relevant free shrinkage strain can be obtained from clause 3. and may influence the design of what is often a critical region.2. It may be simpler not to take the option. clause 6. enter into all load combinations.2.7.3.3(3) For buildings. and uncracked cross-sections can be assumed throughout. and the structure re-analysed.4. cracking of concrete reduces the flexural stiffness in hogging moment regions. because the extent of the cracked regions has to be found. Effects of cracking of concrete Clause 5.7.3(3) by a simplified approach of limited application.

4. the extent of the cracking can only be determined from analysis under the design loads.5 y2 0. these effects may not be significant.5 0. The combination factors recommended in clause A1.2.4. in the usual notation and with the recommended γF factors.1(3) and 5. Temperature effects Clause 5. It provides a further incentive to select steel sections for beams that are not weakened by lateral–torsional buckling.2.1(1)P.4.2. The cracked regions could differ significantly from the assumed values in a frame that resists wind loading by bending. The corresponding value of the elastic critical factor αcr can therefore be determined prior to analysis under the design loads. Combination factors for imposed load and temperature Action Imposed load. The reasons why stiffness is not reduced to the ‘cracked’ value until an extreme-fibre stress of twice the mean tensile strength of the concrete is reached.3(3) Clauses 5.2.5(2) states that temperature effects. However.4.2(1)). Where the conditions are not satisfied.2(1) of EN 1990 are given in Table 5.2. Fully encased beams are outside the scope of EN 1994-1-1. for a building with floors in category B. are as follows: • • • • the concrete is likely to be stronger than specified reaching fctm at the surface may not cause the slab to crack right through. This analysis therefore needs to be carried out before the criteria can be checked. and Clause 5. For ultimate limit states. without attempting to prove whether or not it is strictly necessary.2. are 32 .2.3(3) to 5.2.4. the stiffness of a cracked region is greater than EaI2. Study of the ψ factors of Annex A1 of EN 199036 for combinations of actions for buildings will show.7. that temperature effects do not influence design. Steel reinforcement is normally neglected in the calculation of I1.3(4) only to some situations. The ‘encasement’ in clause 5.6 y1 0. Clause 5. Its scope is narrow because it applies to all composite structures. the cracked regions in beams are of fixed extent. office areas.4. for many projects.2.2. It is permitted to modify these values in a National Annex.3(5) beams in braced frames.2. for which regions of slab in tension are more extensive than they are for any particular loading. For unbraced frames. specified in EN 1991-1-5. and the effective stiffness of the columns is given by clause 6. not buildings only.35 may normally be neglected in analyses for certain situations. and even if it does. as this extent is based on the envelope of internal forces and moments for characteristic combinations. It is then worth checking if second-order effects can be neglected. This is illustrated for the design action effects due to the combination of imposed load (Q) with temperature (T). the combinations to be considered. It is more straightforward to carry out a second-order analysis. because of tension stiffening between the cracks the calculation uses an envelope of moments.4(2). the general method of clause 5.4.4.3(3).4.3(5) provide a non-iterative method.2.3. Where second-order analysis is necessary. the effects of tension stiffening are significant at the stage of initial cracking until after yielding of the reinforcement.2. These include conventional continuous composite beams. but one that is applicable Clause 5.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Table 5. strictly the extent of cracking in beams should take account of the second-order effects.3 0 The ‘uncracked’ and ‘cracked’ flexural stiffnesses EaI1 and EaI2 are defined in clause 1. For braced frames within the scope of clause 5. Cracking affects the stiffness of a frame.2. and therefore needs to be considered in the criteria for use of first-order analysis (clauses 5.3 (2) should be used. building in category B Temperature (non-fire) in buildings y0 0.5(2) Clause 5. Similar comments apply to other combinations of actions and types of building.3(5) is a reference to the partially encased beams defined in clause 6.2.1.5.4.7 0.2.

Note 2 to clause 3. They are relevant.4.4.4.4.2.4 or 5. clause 5. In EN 1994-1-1. clause 5.4. global analyses are either ‘elastic’ or ‘plastic’.6.7 of EN 1990 make clear that all of the methods of global analysis defined in clauses 1. is allowed for by using analyses defined as ‘second-order’. that apply to any method of global analysis that does not conform to clause 5.4.6 to 1. In clause 5. the alternatives are: Gk + 0.5. and rigid plastic analysis.6(2) deformations and stiffnesses from their intended or expected values.2.4 of EN 1993-1-1. to the use of finite-element methods.5Qk and Gk + 0. For serviceability limit states.2(2) of Annex A1 of EN 1990 states.6(2) draws attention to the need to consider the effects of deviations of Clause 5.6. mainly principles. governs only where Tk > 0.3.5.4. If the deformations are controlled. There is some inconsistency in the use of the term ‘non-linear’ in the Eurocodes. and temperature is therefore not included. action effects due to temperature are much smaller than those due to imposed load.6Tk) and 1. with T leading.3(1) is ‘Non-linear analysis’.4(1)P of EN 1990 states: ‘Usually the serviceability requirements are agreed for each individual project’. Clause 5. Normally. and ‘plastic’ includes several types of non-linear analysis.4.3 Clause 5.11 (which include ‘plastic’ methods) are ‘non-linear’ in Eurocode terminology.3. For the frequent combination.5.3(1) 33 .7 in EN 1992-1-1 referred to from clause 5.5. ‘Non-linear’ in these clauses refers to the deformation properties of the materials.3Qk The second one governs only where Tk > 0. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 1.’ There are three combinations of actions given in EN 1990 for serviceability limit states: characteristic.5Tk + 0.6(2) permits design values of internal forces and moments arising from this form of prestressing to be calculated from the characteristic or nominal value of the deformation. so that clause 5. such as can occur in composite structures. clause 5. and the comments made above therefore apply.4.75Qk.4. Prestressing by controlled imposed deformations Clause 5. Note: The serviceability criteria may be defined in the National Annex. These clauses give provisions.5.4. It should take account of the sensitivity of the structure to any error in the deformation.3 is not applicable where clause 5.6 and 1.6. non-linear analysis. Non-linear global analysis Clause 5. The quasi-permanent combination is normally used for long-term effects. Clause 5.3 adds little to the corresponding clauses in EN 1992-1-1 and EN 1993-1-1. Moderate geometrical non-linearity. Prestressing by jacking of supports is rarely used in buildings.2.2.CHAPTER 5. The first of these uses the same combination factors ψ0 as for ultimate limit states. frequent and quasi-permanent.5.4. The much larger deformations that can occur. The choice between these alternative methods should take account of the properties of composite joints given in Section 8 of EN 1994-1-1. The notes to clauses 1.4. which adds little new information.5(Tk + 0. to which it refers. for example.4. The nature of the control required is not specified. the effects T are unlikely to influence verifications for buildings. Similarly. much depends on the project. for example. 5.4. for buildings: ‘The serviceability criteria should be specified for each project and agreed with the client.6. and additional action effects resulting from the inclusion of T in the first combination are not significant. are treated as separate types of global analysis. as can occur in some industrial structures. need special treatment. This example suggests that unless there are members for which temperature is the most severe action.35Gk + 1.35Gk + 1. which will usually be the intended or measured value. as the subsequent loss of prestress can be high.7Qk) The second one.4Qk. clause A1.5(Qk + 0. in some cable-stayed structures.

At a beam–column intersection in a frame. those in the column should be increased in proportion. Rd to allow for web buckling. αcr ≥ 15. sometimes much higher.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 5.2. the bending moments in the column should be left unaltered. and the cross-section is not in Class 4. Although the provisions of clause 5. in clause 6.4. If hogging moments are increased. Where the shear resistance of a web is reduced to below the plastic value Vpl.1 have been established considering beams subjected only to gravity loading (4) the amounts of redistribution given in Table 5. than at internal supports. The term ‘non-linear’ is used also for a type of resistance. clause 5. which lessens the stiffness of the structure and threatens stability (2) fatigue verification is based on elastic analysis (3) the amounts of redistribution given in Table 5.1 allow for inelastic behaviour in composite beams.4. or to treat it as if in Class 4. One of the requirements of clause 5.4(2) is that redistribution should take account of ‘all types of buckling’. Linear elastic analysis with limited redistribution for buildings 34 .4 appear similar to those of clause 5. The clause is applicable provided second-order effects are not significant. arising from interaction with the beam.4(2) The concept of redistribution of moments calculated by linear-elastic theory is well established in the design of concrete and composite framed structures.1(3) of EN 1993-1-1 gives the more severe limit.1 of BS 5950-3-1. Redistribution for the beam may be done by assuming it to be continuous over simple supports. The flexural stiffness at mid-span is higher. If the hogging moments are reduced. Some of these arise because the scope of the British standard is limited to conventional composite beams in normal building structures. there are usually bending moments in the column. to allow for non-linear material properties.4. so that ‘uncracked’ global analyses overestimate hogging bending moments in continuous beams. but account should be taken of cracking and creep of concrete and the behaviour of joints. Inelastic behaviour results in loss of stiffness. there are important differences. A flow chart for this clause is given in Fig. unless the rotation capacity is sufficient or encasement in compression is neglected (6) the depth of a beam varies within a span (7) a beam with steel of grade higher than S355 has cross-sections in Class 3 or 4 (8) the resistance of the beam is reduced to allow for lateral–torsional buckling. It makes limited allowance for inelastic behaviour. EN 1994-1-1 retains the limit αcr ≥ 10. This limit is a nationally determined parameter.4.4. Although there is considerable experience in using expression (5. In composite beams it is generally easier to provide resistance to bending in mid-span regions than at internal supports. but EN 1994-1-1 does not require this to be taken into account when determining whether the clause is applicable.4. The Eurocode provisions are not applicable where: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) second-order global analysis is required a serviceability or fatigue limit state is being verified the structure is an unbraced frame semi-rigid or partial-strength joints are used beams are partially encased. but not for the moment–rotation characteristics of semi-rigid or partial-strength joints 5.2.5 is being followed.3. and enables the size of a design envelope of bending moments (from all relevant arrangements of variable loads) to be reduced.1) as a criterion for rigid plastic global analysis of steel frames with full-strength joints.2.4(1) Clause 5. Clause 5.4. Clause 5.1.4. The reasons for these exclusions are now briefly explained: (1) redistribution arises from inelastic behaviour.4.4.4(1) refers to redistribution in ‘continuous beams and frames’. 5. it would be prudent either to design it for the vertical shear before redistribution. but composite columns are not mentioned.

whichever is the more restrictive (clause 5. bending moment) (5) crushing of the concrete encasement in compression may limit the rotation capacity needed to achieve redistribution.4. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS Is there a need for second-order global analysis? (Clause 5.1 have been established only for beams of uniform section Clause 5. Follow clause 5. 5. (Clause 5.4.4.5 of EN 1992-1-1.4(3)) Follow the more restrictive of the rules for steel and for concrete members.4(4)) Yes Is the beam partially encased? No Is the beam part of an unbraced frame? (Clause 5. based on linear-elastic global analysis (RoM. Note: this chart applies for verifications for limit states other than fatigue. (Inferred from clause 5.4. (Clause 5.4. (Clause 5. (Clause 5. redistribution of bending moments.4(5)) Maximum hogging BMs may be reduced.4(2)) No Steel member.5(5)) Either: check rotation capacity.4(4)) No Note: The provisions from here onwards refer to ‘beams’ not to ‘frames’ Yes No RoM permitted (END) Is the grade of the steel higher than S355? Yes No Yes Are the conditions of clause 5. limits to redistribution for partially encased beams can be determined by using the rules for steel members or concrete members.4(5)) (END) Fig.4.4(2) of EN 1993-1-1.4(3) Composite member.4(4) on joints and depth of member both satisfied? No Are all cross-sections in Class 1 or 2? No No RoM permitted.4(6)) (END) Yes Are all cross-sections in Class 1 or 2? Yes No No RoM of BMs applied to the steel member. unless rotation capacity has been verified. (Clause 5.4.4(3)) Yes No RoM that reduces moments in columns permitted.4. (Clause 5.CHAPTER 5.4.1 unless verified rotation capacity permits a higher value. Follow clause 5.4.4. by amounts within the limits given in Table 5.4.4(3)) (6) the amounts of redistribution given in Table 5.4(6)) Increase maximum hogging BMs by up to 10% for ‘cracked’ analyses and 20% for ‘uncracked’ analyses.4. or: ignore encasement in compression when finding MRd at sections where BM reduced. Are there any partially encased beams without a concrete or composite slab? Yes No Does the structure analysed include any composite columns? No Concrete member.4(7)) Treat Class 1 sections as Class 2 unless rotation capacity verified. (Clause 5. (Clause 5. BM.4(3) 35 .4. Flow chart for redistribution of moments.4.4(1)) Yes No RoM permitted No RoM from regions influenced by buckling Do first-order elastic global analysis No Yes Are there any cross-sections or members where resistance is influenced by any form of buckling other than local buckling? (Clause 5. (Clause 5.4.4.

4(3)(b) to redistribution in steel members is to those that do not subsequently become composite. Typical moment–curvature curves are shown in Fig.5.5.2(4)). but only if the stress–strain curves are realistic and account is taken of longitudinal slip.1.4.29 The limits given in Table 5. usually from internal supports to mid-span regions.3(2)P.5. The use of plastic resistance moments for action effects found by elastic global analysis (clause 5.1(1)) implies redistribution of moments. The limits to this redistribution in Table 5.31 but are more restrictive by 5% for ‘cracked’ analyses of beams in Class 1 or 2. No such limitation applies to a cross-section in Class 1 or Class 2. Other types of inelastic analysis defined in clause 1.1. by clause 5. by clause 5.1 are based on extensive experience in the use of earlier codes and on research.4.4. No application rules are given for them because they require purpose-written computer programmes.4(4).4.38 Where there are heavy point loads.4(5) Clause 5. Clause 5. No provision is made in EN 1994-1-1 for a ‘non-reinforced’ subdivision of Class 1. which applies only to beams. as required by clause 5. so well known in the UK.2 (see clause 6. between moments calculated by elastic theory in such beams. for which redistribution up to 50% is allowed in BS 5950-3-1. and in particular for adjacent spans of unequal length. as the moment resistance is determined by plastic analysis and is therefore independent of the loading sequence. of beams in Class 228 and Class 3.4. It would be necessary to show that any redistribution proposed satisfied clause 5.4(5). which need not be summarized here.1 makes allowance for inelastic behaviour in a composite beam.4.4. The requirements for minimum reinforcement given in clause 5. there can be a need for redistribution from mid-span to supports.5. This reflects the finding37 that the difference caused by cracking. 5.3.2. Under distributed loading. This is allowed. redistribution usually occurs from hogging to sagging regions of a beam (except of course at an end adjacent to a cantilever). However.1 for ‘uncracked’ analyses are the same as in BS 5950. Development of a collapse mechanism in a composite structure requires a greater 5.4.3(1) of EN 1993-1-1 is λLT > 0. The last condition can be restrictive.4. is nearer 15% than 10%.4.4. It should not be inferred that no redistribution is permitted in structures that fail to satisfy one or more of them.4(7) limits redistribution of moments to those arising after composite action is achieved. The effects of sequence of construction should be considered where unpropped construction is used and the composite member is in Class 3 or 4.4(4) Clause 5.4.4. to a limited extent. The reference in clause 5. The conditions above apply to the percentages given in Table 5. Rigid plastic global analysis for buildings 36 .DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 (7) the greater strains associated with higher grade steels may increase the rotation needed to achieve redistribution (8) lateral–torsional buckling may limit the rotation capacity available.3. They have been checked by parametric studies.6 of EN 1990 are covered in clause 5. the value recommended in a note to clause 6.4. Taking account of the cross-references in clause 5.5 Plastic hinge analysis. as it may apply where λLT > 0. The use of such sections is not prevented by EN 1994-1-1. The resistance of a non-reinforced cross-section is that of the steel member alone. but not required. clause 5. is referred to as ‘rigid plastic’ analysis because it is based on the assumption that the response of a member to bending moment is either rigid (no deformation) or plastic (rotation at constant bending moment). As Table 5. the conditions under which use of rigid plastic global analysis is allowed extend over two pages.4(7) Clause 5.1(5) are applicable only if the calculated resistance moment takes account of composite action. additional to the degrees of redistribution permitted. based on Eurocode 4. These other methods are potentially more accurate than rigid plastic analysis.4.5.4.4(2). for composite beams with rolled or equivalent welded steel sections.

5. and the coefficient that takes account of yield strength.31 The numbers appear different because the two definitions of flange breadth are different. A flow diagram for the provisions of clause 5. because beams are usually much stronger at mid-span than at supports. The classifications are done separately for steel flanges in compression and steel webs. The clause numbers given are from EN 1994-1-1. Clause 5. but the methods interact. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS Rigid–plastic Bending moment Elastic–perfectly plastic Elasto-plastic 0 Curvature Fig. The purpose of the conditions is to ensure that this redistribution.4. Unlike the method in EN 1993-1-1.1) when material behaviour is non-linear. ‘compact’.5.2.5 Clause 5. Classes 1 to 4 correspond respectively to the terms ‘plastic’.1. Clause 5.1(2)).39 These may be substantially weaker than the connected members and the plastic hinges may form at relatively low levels of load. in the same way as for steel members. 5. with three exceptions. The class of the cross-section is the less favourable of the classes so found (clause 5.1(1)P refers to EN 1993-1-1 for definitions of the four classes and the slendernesses that define the class boundaries. Care needs to be taken if plastic hinges are expected to form in partial-strength joints.6. It determines the available methods of global analysis and the basis for resistance to bending.4.4. but not to steel elements of composite members. Classification of cross-sections Typical types of cross-section are shown in Fig.4. Moment–curvature curves for various types of global analysis degree of redistribution of elastic moments than in most steel structures. The classification of cross-sections of composite beams is the established method of taking account in design of local buckling of steel elements in compression.1.1(1)P Clause 5. and as ÷(275/fy) in BS 5950.1 referred to the use of expression (5. This applies during unpropped construction. ε.5. Rigid plastic analysis is applicable only if second-order effects are not significant.CHAPTER 5.5. is defined as ÷(235/fy) in the Eurocodes. 6.4. fracture of steel.1. Clause 5. or crushing of concrete. except as provided in clause 5. unless noted otherwise.6 of EN 1993-1-1.5.5.2. One is where a web is assumed Clause 5.5 is given in Fig. The limiting slendernesses are similar to those of BS 5950-3-1.4.1(2) 37 . Asymmetry of the concrete slab or its reinforcement is also acceptable. The scope of EN 1994-1-1 includes members where the cross-section of the steel component has no plane of symmetry parallel to the plane of its web (e. a channel section). The provision on rotation capacity in clause 5.6(2) of EN 1993-1-1 is replaced by the conditions of clause 5. as described below.5(1) Clause 5.5(4) of EN 1994-1-1. The rule on neutral axis depth in clause 5. it does not apply to columns. Comments on clause 5.5(4) 5.4.5(1) requires cross-sections of ‘steel members’ to satisfy clause 5.5(4)(g) is discussed under clause 6. It would be prudent to neglect the stiffness of such joints when determining αcr.5(6). ‘ semi-compact’ and ‘slender’ that were formerly used in British codes.5.g. and the large in-plane deformations associated with it. can occur without loss of resistance caused by buckling.

5. to Table 5. classify the web using the plastic stress distribution. as it does for a steel section that is not symmetrical about its neutral axis for bending. both discussed later. provided that the sections at locations of plastic hinges are in Class 1. and may imply a certain distribution of bending moment.5.5. 38 .2(1)? Yes No Is the web encased in concrete to clause 5. clause 5.5. to clause 5.5. 3 or 4.1(4) From clause 5. taking account of sequence of construction.3(2)? Yes No Yes Is the compression flange in Class 1 or 2? No No Replace web by effective web in Class 2.5.3(2)? Yes No Note 1: ‘Flange’ means steel compression flange Classify flange to Table 5.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Is steel compression flange restrained by shear connectors to clause 5. depending only on the class of the flange Fig.2(2). Reference is sometimes made to a beam in a certain class. and shrinkage.5. below From clause 5.2(2).2 of EN 1993-1-1 Web in Class 3 Web not classified Web is Class 3 Web is Class 4 Is web encased to clause 5. Clause 5.2(2). if any Locate the elastic neutral axis.6. creep. 5.1(2) warns that the class of a composite section depends on the sign of the bending moment (sagging or hogging). Designers of structures for buildings normally select beams with steel sections such that the composite sections are in Class 1 or 2. This means that none of its cross-sections is in a less favourable class than the one stated.2(12) of EN 1993-1-1).5. Classification of a cross-section of a composite beam to resist shear forces only (clause 5.5.2(3) and the use of web encasement. assuming full shear connection. classify the web using the elastic stress distribution.2 of EN 1993-1-1 Compression flange is: Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Locate the plastic neutral axis.5. to Table 5.2 of EN 1993-1-1 From clause 5. allowing for partial shear connection.2(3)? Yes Web is Class 1 Web is Class 2 Effective web is Class 2 Is the compression flange in Class 3? Yes No Is the flange in Class 1? Yes Section is Class 1 No Section is Class 2 Effective section is Class 2 Section is Class 3 Section is Class 4 Note 2: Where elastic global analysis will be used.5.4(6) of EN 1993-1-1 permits the section to be designed as Class 2. and the web will be assumed to resist shear force only.5.2 of EN 1994-1-1 Note: See Note 2. classify flange to Table 5. The others are the ‘hole-in-web’ option of clause 5. to clause 5. for the following reasons: • Rigid plastic global analysis is not excluded.

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS • • • Bending resistances of beams can be found using plastic theory.1(6).40 Clause 5. it often happens that the bottom flange is in Class 1 or 2. with another part of 20εtw adjacent to the plastic neutral axis of the effective cross-section.2. while subjected to higher rotation than those in Class 3 or 4.5. which in turn could place the section in Class 3.5. The limits to redistribution of moments are more favourable than for Classes 3 and 4. which lies within the top flange.1(1)P. is not effective in bending enables the reduced section to be upgraded from Class 3 to Class 2. during which both the top flange and the web of a steel beam may be in a lower class until the member becomes composite.1(3) Clause 5.5. appears here. it may be difficult to provide full shear connection. The web encasement improves the resistance of both the web and the other 39 . this gives resistances from 20 to 40% above the elastic resistance.1(7) draws attention to the use of unpropped construction.5. has the same objective. Clause 5. which depends on the tensile force in the slab just before it cracks.1. The method. for which the bending resistance would be based on the plastic distribution. Partially encased cross-sections Partially encased sections are defined in clause 6.31 It is now in clause 6.5. Simply-supported composite beams in buildings are almost always in Class 1 or 2. because it gives a further condition for a cross-section to be placed in Class 1 or 2.1.5. Clause 5.CHAPTER 5. In beams subjected to hogging bending.5. Clause 5.1 and 6.1(3) refers to this.1(7) The hole-in-web method This useful device first appeared in BS 5930-3-1. This is because the use of the elastic distribution could place a section in Class 2. Clause 6. which is referred to from clause 5. The assumption that a defined depth of web. rather than in Section 6. the plastic distribution. the ‘hole’. and this is different for elastic and plastic bending.2. to allow for local buckling. but only where all beam cross-sections are in Class 1 or 2. For composite sections.6.5. and by requiring a minimum cross-sectional area. because the second ‘part of 20εtw’ is not adjacent to the plastic neutral axis.2(1) refers to the more useful clause 6. This is ensured by disallowing the use of bars in ductility Class A (the lowest). Those illustrated there also have concrete flanges. and this limitation. There is a limitation to its scope that is not evident from the wording in EN 1993-1-1: The proportion of the web in compression should be replaced by a part of 20εtw adjacent to the compression flange. The method is then not applicable.2(3). especially where fyd is reduced to allow for vertical shear.2. and clause 5. The method is analogous to the use of effective areas for Class 4 sections. Where composite floor slabs are used. because the depth of web in compression (if any) is small.2(3) It follows that for a design yield strength fyd the compressive force in the web is limited to 40εtw fyd.1(5).5. with the advantages for design that are listed above.1(4) provides the answer. it is not obvious which stress distribution should be used for a section near the boundary between Classes 2 and 3.1(4) Clause 5. Since the class of a web depends on the level of the neutral axis.5. The reason is that these sections must maintain their bending resistance. on the minimum area of reinforcement for a concrete flange.5. are illustrated in Examples 6.5. Clause 5. whereas the increase for steel sections is about 15%.5. without fracture of the reinforcement.4 of EN 1993-1-1. Clause 5.6. on welded mesh. which limits the spacing of the shear connectors required.5. the tensile force in the longitudinal reinforcement in the slab can exceed this value.1(6) Clause 5.1(5) Clause 5. and the web is in Class 3. and the connection to the concrete slab prevents local buckling of the adjacent steel flange.1(14) permits partial connection. The initial effect of local buckling of the web would be a small reduction in the bending resistance of the section. Clause 5.5. For a composite beam in hogging bending.

3(1). Conditions under which the encasement contributes to the bending and shear resistance of the member are given in Section 6. as shown in clause 5.5. 40 .DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Clause 5.5. A concrete flange is not essential. without loss of cross-section. which gives the increased slenderness ratios for compression flanges in Classes 2 and 3.3 specifies the encasement that enables a Class 3 web to be treated as Class 2.5. The limit for Class 1 is unaltered. where relevant comments will be found. The rest of clause 5.3(1) flange to local buckling.

1 shows typical examples of beams for buildings within the scope of EN 1994-1-1. Some of these differences arise from the different treatments of shear connection in the two codes. Beams 6.1. and deals mainly with shear connection in beams. For lateral–torsional buckling of beams and for columns. and there is an implicit assumption that the member is of uniform cross-section.5 Clause 6. covers steel. Beams for buildings Figure 6. The top right-hand diagram represents a longitudinal haunch.4 Clause 6.CHAPTER 6 Ultimate limit states This chapter corresponds to Section 6 of EN 1994-1-1.8.1 6.1.1. defined in clause 6.3 Clause 6. which has the following clauses: • • • • • • • • Beams Resistances of cross-sections of beams Resistance of cross-sections of beams for buildings with partial encasement Lateral–torsional buckling of composite beams Transverse forces on webs Shear connection Composite columns and composite compression members Fatigue Clause 6.7 Clause 6. and profiled sheeting with spans at right angles to the span of the beam.1.6 Clause 6.1 Clause 6.7 define resistances of cross-sections to static loading. … where the strength of constructional materials of the structure governs. Not shown (and not excluded) is the common situation in which profiled sheeting spans are parallel to the span of the beam. and continuous or discontinuous over the beam. but a number of clauses are headed ‘for buildings’.1 to 6. Sheeting with trapezoidal troughs is also within the scope of the code.1(1) of EN 1990 as: Internal failure or excessive deformation of the structure or structural members. concrete and reinforcement by cross-reference to Eurocodes 2 and 3. for comparison with action effects determined by the methods of Section 5.1. apart from variations arising from cracking of concrete and from detailing. which are compared in comments on clause 6.2 Clause 6.1. .8 Clauses 6. Clause 6. Most of the provisions of Section 6 are applicable to both buildings and bridges. and are replaced by other clauses in EN 1994-2. ‘Fatigue’. The ultimate limit state considered is STR. The details include web encasement.4. A re-entrant trough is shown in the bottom right-hand diagram. the resistance is influenced by the properties of the whole member. The self-contained clause 6.

and elastic methods are used.1.1. Channel and angle sections should not be used unless the shear connection is designed to provide torsional restraint. partly because their location is different for each arrangement of variable load.1(6)) and critical lengths (clause 6.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Fig.41 Clause 6. Cross-sections in Class 3 or 4 are common in bridges.1(6)). One method is to use the result that gives the greater change of force over the critical length being considered.1. There is an extensive literature on their design.1(4)P Clause 6. 6.1(5) Shear connection In buildings. It may not be clear which one to use. the longitudinal force in a concrete flange is easily found. the number in the hogging region may not correspond to the force that has to be transferred from the longitudinal slab reinforcement. The shear connection in the short 42 . These concepts are not used in bridge design. composite cross-sections are usually in Class 1 or 2. Stub girders are not within the scope of EN 1994-1-1. even where the vertical shear is zero. shear connection to provide this change is needed.1.3(2)P.2 of EN 1993-1-1.1(5) gives a criterion for deciding whether the change is sudden enough to be allowed for. This does not matter. for example. Clause 6. Where connectors are uniformly spaced over this length. the new critical section has different forces in the flange on each side of it. A critical length in a continuous beam may therefore include both a sagging and a hogging region. so design of shear connection for buildings is often based on the change in this force between two cross-sections where the force is known. In theory. Other possible types include any of those shown in sheet 1 of Table 5. rectangular hollow sections.1. not more than about two beam depths apart. and the bending resistance is determined by plastic theory.1. provided that the reinforcing bars are long enough to be anchored beyond the relevant connectors.1(4)P to clause 6. The need for consistency between the spacing of connectors and curtailment of reinforcement is treated in clause 6. Where the clause is applied.or H-section or may be a doubly-symmetrical or mono-symmetrical plate girder. Typical cross-sections of composite beams The steel cross-section may be a rolled I.1. At the plastic moment of resistance. Longitudinal shear flows are therefore found from the well-known result from elastic theory.6. This led to the concepts of critical cross-sections (clause 6. A sudden change in the cross-section of a member changes the longitudinal force in the concrete flange. Points of contraflexure are not critical cross-sections. vL = VAy/I .1. An alternative is to locate critical cross-sections on both sides of the change point. and will normally show that changes in reinforcement can be ignored.

but usually this is neglected. Ed = VEd A y /I should be replaced by ν L. needs to take account of the change of section. where the steel beam is haunched. The simplification in clause 6. For ribs that run at an angle θ to the beam. A tapering member has a gradually changing cross-section.2(4). Where bending resistances of cross-sections are based on an elastic model and limiting stresses.1. as given by clause 5. Provisions for composite floor slabs. is too complex for verification of cross-sections in beams for buildings. Full encasement is outside the scope of EN 1994. with shear connection based on bending resistances. where resistances may be based on plastic theory.6.1. which is usual in bridges. This has led to the use of partial shear connection. It is applicable only where the critical cross-sections are in Class 1 or 2. Where elastic theory is used. i. Most of it is applicable to both buildings and bridges. It is applicable. not to resistances. as part of it is resisted by the sloping steel flange. cos2 θ should be taken as zero.1(6) enables the effect to be allowed for by using additional critical sections. Shear connection designed in this way.1(7)P. Effective width for verification of cross-sections Clause 6.1(5) is clearer for a beam that is composite for only part of its length. Clauses in EN 1994-1-1 that refer to it are therefore labelled ‘for buildings’. to MEd. in buildings. are given only for buildings. in clause 6. Where the spans are parallel (θ = 0). longitudinal shear flows can be found from vL. the effective area includes the area within the depth of the ribs.2.1.1(7). the effective area of concrete does not include that within the ribs.2(2) often enables checks on the bending resistance of continuous beams to be limited to the supports and the mid-span regions.2.1(7) Effective cross-section of a beam with a composite slab Where the span of a composite slab is at right angles to that of the beam.1) where x is the coordinate along the member. They are related to action effects.2.1.2(2) 6.1. for example. For buildings.1. Ed = VEd Ay/I + MEd d(Ay/I ) dx (D6. is ‘partial’ according to the definition in clause 6. The space within the troughs available for the shear connection is often insufficient for the connectors needed to develop the ultimate compressive force in the concrete flange. 6. because of other constraints on design.1(6) Clause 6.e. 6. For these reasons.2. and the resistance moment corresponding to that force is often more than is required. the effective area of concrete within an effective width of flange may be taken as the full area above the ribs plus cos2 θ times the area of concrete within the ribs. The application of clause 6. the equation vL. the concept ‘partial shear connection’ is confusing in bridge design and not relevant. The end of the composite region is then a critical section.3. which applies to global analysis. because increasing it would increase the bending resistances in the vicinity – though not in a way that is easily calculated.4. This can occur from variation in the thickness or effective width of the concrete flange. The variation of effective width along a span.2. clause 6. based on the longitudinal forces at those sections. Service ducts in slabs can cause a significant loss of effective cross-section. 43 . Partial encasement is treated for buildings only. as well as from non-uniformity in the steel section. see clause 6. Resistances of cross-sections of beams This clause is for beams without partial or full encasement in concrete.CHAPTER 6. using profiled steel sheeting.1.1.1. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES critical length between these two sections. bending resistances are often limited to what is needed.1.4.1. This paragraph should not be confused with clause 5. Clause 6. The treatment of vertical shear then requires care. Ed = VEd A y /I. because inelastic behaviour and partial interaction are involved. which is defined in clause 6. Where θ > 60°. as in the lower half of Fig.1. Thus.

Small concrete flanges Where the concrete slab is in compression.44 Laboratory tests on beams show that strain hardening of steel usually occurs before crushing of concrete.1. non-linear theory and elastic analysis.2.1(3) The assumption that composite cross-sections remain plane is always permitted by clause 6.2.1. and the concrete cover is little greater than the bar diameter. For beams with curvature in plan sufficiently sharp for torsional moments not to be Clause 6.2. Clause ‘Full interaction’ in clause 6.3.46 led to the upper limit to neutral-axis depth given in clause 5.2.7. This is not a reference to non-linear global analysis.1.6. or in EN 1993. Clause 6. This problem also affects the rotation capacity of plastic hinges.1. based on rigid plastic theory.2. A steel bottom flange may require horizontal restraint at points within the span of the beam.42.43 Bolt holes in steelwork should be treated in accordance with EN 1993-1-1. which is then designed as a horizontal beam to resist that load. 44 .2 to 6. The ‘non-linear theory’ is that given in clause 6.1.2. Guidance is given in clause 9. If it is included.1. Bending resistance Clause 6. led to the conclusion that premature crushing can be neglected unless the grade Clause 6.2.2.2.2(2) of the structural steel is higher than S355. and the low probability that the strength of both the steel and the concrete will be only at the design level.2.1.4.2(1)(c) Reinforcement in compression It is usual to neglect slab reinforcement in compression (clause 6. Rd where the steel grade is S420 or S460 and the depth of the plastic neutral axis is high. particularly clauses 6. and so increases the maximum compressive strain at the top of the slab. The effect of this.2.1(5) negligible.1. consideration should be given to possible buckling of the bars.2. the risk of premature crushing led to a reduction in the factor αM.2(1)(c)).6(1).2. The implication is that longitudinal slip is negligible.1. but specialized literature is available. clause 6. for S420 and S460 steels.1.1(3). three different approaches are given.2(1)(a) means that no account need be taken of slip or 6.1.3(1) of EN 1992-1-1 on reinforcement in concrete walls. 6. the design methods of EN 1994-1-1 are intended to allow for its effects. and the shear connection should be designed for both longitudinal and transverse forces. for a given tensile strain in the steel bottom flange. the method of clause 6. The meaning is that the reinforcement in compression should not be the layer nearest to the free surface of the slab. where elastic and non-linear theory are used.2.2.2(2) specifies a reduction in Mpl. on the treatment of large holes in steel webs.5(4)(g).1.6. checks for beams in buildings can be made by assuming that the changing direction of the longitudinal force in a flange (and a web.2. This may not be so if the concrete flange is small compared with the steel section.1. Clause 6. Extensive research45. Wherever slip may not be negligible.1(5) gives no guidance on how to allow for the effects of curvature. In analysis from first principles. especially where the slab is cracked.4. For composite columns.1.2 is based on the assumption that the whole effective areas of steel and concrete can reach their design strengths before the concrete begins to crush. given in clause 6. There is no requirement for slip to be determined.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 No guidance is given in EN 1994-1-1. This lowers the plastic neutral axis. This would be difficult because the stiffness of shear connectors is not known accurately.2(1)(a) separation at the steel–concrete interface. if significant) creates a transverse load on that flange. because the conditions set will be satisfied if the design is in accordance with EN 1994. In clause 6. A detailed study of the problem has been reported.1.

Where the troughs are parallel. if it has. amongst other cases.1.1.2).2.2.1. The provisions referred to in clause 6. 6.1.1. Beams with partial shear connection in buildings The background to the use of partial shear connection is explained in comments on clause 6.1.1. Rd by the effects of lateral buckling. In practice. fracture before the moment–rotation curve for a typical double-cantilever specimen reaches a plateau.2. Clause 6. This is an assumption implicit in much of the drafting of the provisions ‘for buildings’.3(2) required in hogging regions of composite beams for several reasons: • • • • the bending moment may be larger than predicted because the concrete has not cracked or.1. In the ‘general’ clauses.1.3(2)) of the reinforcement within the effective section.1.2. Profiled sheeting with troughs that are not parallel to the span of a beam is ineffective in tension.2.2.1. because in bridges this can occur in regions of sagging curvature (Fig.1(7) that where the bending resistance is reduced below Mpl.2(3)) ensures that few Class 3 sections need be excluded.2(5).1. The words ‘hogging bending’ in clause 6.1.2(3)).3(1) include clause 6. and most welded meshes. This means all sections within the span considered. 45 . which begins ‘If all cross-sections are in Class 1 or Class 2 …’. This is Clause 6.2. because of tension stiffening the yield strength of the reinforcement exceeds fsd ( = fsk/γS) tests show that at high curvatures.CHAPTER 6.1. the use of an effective web in Class 2 (clause 5.2(5) of clause 6.2.2.1. Example of a composite beam with the slab in tension at mid-span Ductility of reinforcement Reinforcement with insufficient ductility to satisfy clause 5.2(4)) because at large strains its resistance can Clause 6. resistance to tension may still be difficult to achieve.5.2.1. It is permitted only for the compressive force in the concrete slab (clause 6. shear connection is required only for the reduced resistance. 6. should not be included within the effective section of beams in Class 1 or 2 (clause 6. strain hardening occurs in the reinforcement the design rules for lateral–torsional buckling do not allow for the effects of partial interaction. For advantage to be taken Clause 6. and welded mesh. Profiled steel sheeting The contribution of profiled steel sheeting in compression to the plastic moment of resistance of a beam is ignored (clause 6. the sheeting needs to be continuous. It could be inferred from the definition of full shear connection in clause 6.1.2.3(1) Where the slab is in tension the shear connection must be sufficient to ‘ensure yielding’ (clause 6.2.1(14). Full shear connection is Clause 6. phrases such as ‘regions where the slab is in tension’ are used instead.3(1)). Thus.3(2) makes it clear that the inference is incorrect.2. to all beams in Class 1 or 2 with tensile force in the slab.2.2. Rd applies.1(5). clause 6.5.2(3) because laboratory tests on hogging moment regions have shown19 that some reinforcing bars. Clause 6. The problem with welded mesh is explained in comments on clause 3.1. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES Fig.2 on the plastic resistance moment Mpl.6. and interaction with other components of the cross-section has to be achieved.3 imply that the concrete slab is above the steel beam.2(4) be much reduced by local buckling.2(1). This is because deformation could arise from change in shape of the profile rather than strain resulting from stress.

In other words: slip required (i.2. of course.1.2.2) 47. will transmit a reduced force. f MRd fyd Na fyd 0 Stresses Ma Strains Fig.1. For longitudinal equilibrium. f to the slab (see Fig.1. Their use is now illustrated. the force Nc. Calculation models The calculation model given in clause 6. The line AC is a simpler and more conservative approximation to it. reference should be made to comments on clause 6.2).3(5) and degree of shear connection. which is for the situation shown in Fig. i. so it too has a neutral axis. 6.3(3) can be explained as follows.2. 6.3) The application rules for general use are based on an available slip of 6 mm. as the number of shear connectors is reduced.1.2. 6.3(5) give two relationships between resistance moment MRd Clause 6. relies upon curvatures beyond the elastic range. For partial shear connection with non-ductile connectors.1.85fcd Nc = hNc.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Ductile connectors Clause 6.4(a) shows the limits to the use of partial shear connection given in clause 6. in which Mpl. relied on in design) £ slip available (D6. The basic condition for the use of partial shear connection is that the bending resistance must not fall below the design value until after the curvature has reached the minimum value relied upon in the method of global analysis used. For η < 1. Nc.3(3) refers to ‘ductile connectors’.2. the concrete stress block has a reduced depth. the number that will transmit the force Nc.2) was then applied by defining combinations of η and span length such that the slip required did not exceed 6 mm. i.3. Thus.2. Rd is the plastic resistance of the steel section.2. Use of redistribution of moments.2. At the interface between steel and concrete there is slip strain. For a given cross-section. The model assumes no separation of the slab from the beam. Neither the slip at this point nor the slip strain need be calculated in practice. Condition (D6. Clause 6. Plastic stress and strain distributions under sagging bending for partial shear connection 46 .1.6. and a neutral axis at its lower edge.2. n. f = n/nf (D6. The strain distribution is thus as shown in Fig.e.1. The latter parameter is represented by the ratio of the number of connectors provided within a critical length. The lower half of Fig. checked against test results. so their curvatures must be the same. part of the steel beam must also be in compression.1(7)P). n. 6. a. 6. A reduced number.1.1. where a flow chart (see Fig.4(a). for connectors of a given shear strength.4 in EN 1994-1-1.3(3) Clause 6. 0.48 that It has been shown by extensive numerical analyses.2. for example.3.3(4) and 6.1. Headed studs regarded as ductile are defined in clause 6.2.6. the ‘degree of shear connection’ is η = Nc /Nc.1. 6. 6. rate of change of longitudinal slip. Calculations using the method above give curve AHC in the upper part of Fig.2.e.4. the slip required increases with the span of the beam and.e. f can be found using clause 6.1. to the number nf required for ‘full shear connection’ (defined in clause 6.11) and further comments are given.3(4) Clauses 6.

Rd A 0 J N Ma. as shown in Fig. the spacing may be 47 .4 F h (= Nc/Nc. from clause 6. Rd £ 2. point H can be determined. Rd.6. and.2(1) R 0 0.4.0 Other studs. Ab = At P 10 D E fy = 275 fy = 460 Other studs. as explained in Example 6.0 Le (m) 25 Q (b) Non-ductile connectors 20 S Studs to clause 6. the number required. (n/nf)min. The higher of the values of η given by points J and F is the minimum degree of shear connection.4(a)). from (n/nf)min.4(a). is below MEd. this degree of shear connection is sufficient. as they are here if Mpl.2 (e. Rd MEd G H K C Mpl.8 1. pl. f Nc. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES Mpl. point B. Rd C Mel. (2) If that resistance exceeds the design moment MEd. 6. With full shear connection the resistance is Mpl. Ed 0 P V Nc/Nc.1. for which the connectors are ductile. el /Nc. Rd. and the loading is uniformly distributed. mid-span and a support). (1) Find the minimum shear connection.6 0. 6. Ab = At. Design methods for partial shear connection Outline of a typical design procedure The example is a simply-supported beam of span L. Ab = 3At n /n f (a) Ductile connectors Fig.1.2(3). The steel section has flanges of equal area. with a Class 1 section at mid-span.CHAPTER 6.4 below. point B. route DEF in Fig. Calculate the number of connectors for full shear connection. a. from clause 6. f 1. (3) If the resistance.5Ma. (4) If the resistance.1. along the length Lcr between the two relevant critical cross-sections (here. Rd Q B M MEd T U Mpl. and hence point J. n can be found. the interpolation method can be used (route GKN) to give the value of n/nf required.g.6. and the corresponding resistance to bending (route FMB). Stud connectors are to be used.1.6.0 0. and then.3(3) are satisfied.4 0. hence. f) 1. If the conditions of clause 6. it may be possible to reduce the number of connectors by using the method for non-ductile connectors. 6. as shown below. Alternatively. (5) The spacing of the n connectors is now considered. is much higher than MEd.6.

We need to find out whether or not xa > tf. Theory for force Nc.6Na When the neutral axis is at the underside of the steel top flange.4Na From equilibrium. of area Atop. Nc. from expression (a). providing a compressive force Nac in the steel. f = Na. For rolled sections. f ≥ 0. Its calculation is tedious. Nc + Nac = Na so.5xa below the top of the slab. f ≥ 0.3(3). The neutral axis in the steel is at a depth xa below the interface.4. Atop ≥ 0.3Aa. the plastic stress blocks are as shown in Fig.1. (a) Cross-section.85beffxcfcd hc xc hp hg tf b G xa Nac = 2bxafyd Na = Asfyd (a) (b) Fig.1. 6. Nac ≥ 0.3(4). f (equation (D6. an intermediate critical section must be chosen. Otherwise.3(5). In most beams with full shear connection. Nac £ 0. and to take the compressive strength over depth xa as 2fyd.6. or the spacing must be related to the elastic distribution of longitudinal shear. clause 6. so only the case xa < tf is considered.2. from Fig. but can be simplified a little.6. It is convenient to retain the known force Na acting at the centre of area G of the steel section. (d) (c) (b) (a) 48 .5.2. less than Nc.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 beff Nc = 0.4Nc. They usually are. where the compressive force in the concrete slab is Nc. because the plastic neutral axis lies within the slab.5. clause 6. Figure 6. for a moment MEd. where PRd is the design resistance of a connector and Nc is the force referred to in clause 6. Force Nac is then as shown in Fig.1. It is required that Nc /Nc. xa < tf when the preceding assumptions are valid.3)).5 shows a cross-section of a beam in sagging bending. so when xa = tf. (b) Longitudinal stresses uniform. being limited by the strength of the shear connection. Nac /Na = 2Atop /Aa For most rolled I-sections. and acts at a depth hc + hp + 0. Following clause 6. 6. xa hc + hp. 6.6Na (e) From expressions (c) and (e). as shown here. 6.5. Taking moments about the top of the slab.4(a).1. so this depth can be taken as hc + hp. Determination of n for a given MEd by the equilibrium method The number of connectors needed to develop the moment MEd is n = Nc /PRd.3(3). from equation (d). so Nc ≥ 0. This is because the stress in that area is to be changed from yield in tension to yield in compression.

enables the resistance of a section to be determined iteratively from the stress–strain relationships of the materials.4(5) Clause 6.1.1. so the straight line QC is a conservative approximation.4(7) Shear connection to clause 6.3. since PRd is known for given connectors. find Nc and then xc.2.2. Nc.1.2.2. which follows the comments on clause 6. where the composite member resists no moment.2.4(2) assumed to remain plane.4(6) Accurate calculation shows QC to be a convex-upwards curve. Non-linear or elastic theory should now be used to determine resistance to bending. and the resulting stresses determined. in which case the calculation for bending resistance may be terminated. For concrete. This may show that the design bending moment does not exceed the resistance. 6. and then n from n = Nc /PRd .3 and clauses 6.1. based on plastic analysis of the section.CHAPTER 6.2. The first approach. n is increased and the process repeated.6.4(5) lead to a complete moment-curvature curve for the cross-section.1. to ensure that the stresses correspond to zero axial force on the section. which are based on the same data.4(1) Clause 6. which is based on Fig.4.1. This is based on three points on the curve relating longitudinal force in the slab.1.4(2) says that cross-sections should be Clause 6. and see whether or not equation (D6. EN 1992-1-1 gives ultimate strains for concrete and reinforcement which eventually limit the moment resistance.1.1 and 6.6. so it is rational to neglect slip when calculating longitudinal shear. Clause 6.1.2. a simplified approach is given in clause 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES MEd = Na(hg + hp + hc) – ½xc Nc – Nac(hc + hp) MEd = Na hg + 0. 6. Clause 6.2.4(6).2. With both. for a given distribution of bending moment along a span.9. This is why clause 6. Clause 6.4(6) thus enables hand calculation to be used.4(4) Clause 6. these points are: • • • P.4(5).2.1.2. calculate Nac from equation (b). Plastic behaviour of the shear connection can no longer be assumed.7.1.2.1.2.1. Clause 6. the assumed strain distribution will have to be revised. Once this condition is satisfied.6. and in Fig.11.1.8 and 6.5.4 Computations based on the stress–strain curves referred to in clause 6. in Examples 6.2. clause 6.4(1) to 6.1. The definition of partial shear connection in clause 6.4(3) to 6. 6.1.4 and clause 6. slip must be kept small.1. For buildings.2.1.6. the calculations should be done at the critical sections for the design bending moments.4(2) Clause 6.4) Substitution for Nac from equation (b) and use of the expression for Nc in Fig.1.4(b). which is defined by the results of an elastic analysis of the section C. the bending moment is calculated from the stress distribution. A strain distribution is assumed for the cross-section. and usually to reduce longitudinal shear. Otherwise.1. choose a convenient value for n.6. With reference to Fig.4 The effect of slip at the steel–concrete interface is to increase curvature. Provisions are given in clause 6.2.2. Clearly.1(7)P is unhelpful.4(7) refers to a simplified treatment of creep. Where connectors are not ‘ductile’. including a falling branch. a general increase in strain should be made and the calculations repeated. In practice.2. because the 49 .1.85beff xc fcd (hc + hp – ½xc) (D6.2.4) gives a value that exceeds MEd.2 and 6.2.1. For sections in Class 1 or 2. The use of partial shear connection is illustrated in Example 6.2. given in clause 6.5 gives This can be solved for xc.4(3) Clause 6. Usually.1. Non-ductile connectors These are connectors that do not satisfy the requirements for ductile connectors given in clauses 6. 6. it may be simpler to calculate Na. described in clause 6.1.1. If it does not. in practice this procedure requires the use of software.2. so Nc = 0 Q.6. Non-linear resistance to bending There are two approaches.2.1. There is much interaction between clause 6. to design bending moment MEd that are easily determined.1. which gives Nc.

(Secondary effects are defined in clause 2.5(5) One permanent action that influences MEd is shrinkage of concrete.4(2)).3(3). one or both of them must be increased Clause 6.6 The position of line PQ depends on the method of construction. Ed and MEd be the design bending moments for the steel and composite sections. design methods based on elastic behaviour are best avoided. Their total is typically less than the elastic resistance to bending. Unpropped construction normally proceeds by stages. which may have to be considered individually in bridge design. As. Where non-ductile connectors are used. Elastic resistance to bending Clause 6. these can usually be ignored in calculations for the final situation. It is a peculiarity of composite structures that when unpropped construction is used. may be assumed to apply. which concerns global analysis to determine the secondary effects of shrinkage in statically-indeterminate structures. el/Nc.5(5) enables the primary stresses to be neglected in cracked concrete. This is why Nc. This figure is approximately to scale for a typical composite section in sagging bending. Ed applied to the steel alone was 0.4(b) is based on plastic analysis to clause 6. for a section in Class 3.4(6) includes.33 Nc. 6. This provision. Clause 6. this should be done. This is because Ma. which affects Mel. clause 6. Ed left unchanged.2.5(2) is reached. Rd = 1.1. The theory is based on plane cross-sections (clause 6. in reality.25Mpl. To enable a unique result to be obtained.2. as far as possible. For ductile connectors.1. but the implication is that they should be included where the slab is in compression. 6. This process leaves self-equilibrated residual stresses in composite cross-sections. which permits uniform spacing. so the spacing of connectors should ideally correspond to the variation of the force in the slab. Nc.2. The plastic and elastic methods of calculation for the hogging moment of resistance are illustrated by preparing a graph that shows changes in this resistance as the effective area of longitudinal reinforcement in the slab.1.2. which are less uncertain than the variable actions whose effects comprise most of MEd. f = 0.3.4(b).4(6) says that MEd is to be increased.2. along the member. 6.1: resistance moment in hogging bending. so to find Mel.1. with effective web A typical cross-section near an internal support of a continuous composite beam is shown in Fig. Rd that may seem strange.1.6(a). applied to the steel structure and removed from the composite structure.1. Rd. is increased from zero to 50 . Example 6. clause 6.) These complications explain why.1. for ultimate limit states in buildings. No specific guidance is given for the spacing of shear connectors when moment resistance is determined by non-linear theory. For composite beams in buildings. as resistances of sections are found by plastic theory). Let Ma. It is here assumed that the beam was unpropped. the moment Ma.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 number of connectors for full shear connection can be found only from the stress distribution corresponding to the maximum moment.2. the required ratio n/nf is given by route TUV in Fig. a definition of Mel. Ed is mainly from permanent actions. Rd.2. Ed. the elastic resistance to bending depends on the proportion of the total load that is applied before the member becomes composite. almost incidentally.2. respectively. Clause 6.1. For a given design moment MEd (which must include Ma.5(2) until one or more of the limiting stresses in clause 6. f in Fig.3.2(8). For simply-supported spans in buildings.6. it is usually sufficiently accurate to assume that the whole of the wet concrete is placed simultaneously on the bare steelwork. and Ma. for which Mpl.2.4.1. and that at the critical section for sagging bending. Rd /Mel. Rd.2. The weight of formwork is. should not be confused with clause 5.

as used here. Rd for Class 3 beam 1800 mm2. For equilibrium. The depth of web in compression.6.3 2(ac – 40te) 20te 19 142 199 20te 19 116 0 116 fyd 286 100 0 ht = 152 D A 116 C B 102 340 95 c = 360 26 228 222 hh = 4 102 228 328 8. c. 6.2 of EN 1993-1-1. which is now explained. for As = 267 mm2 (units: mm and kN). is the depth between flange fillets (or welds).CHAPTER 6. in blocks of depth 20tε above and below the hole.5. The use of an effective web to clause 5. 2(αc – 40tε).2(3). the depth in tension must be reduced by αc – 40tε. this is when αc/tε = 456α/(13α – 1) As α increases from 0. Rd for Class 2 beam.5.0. Other useful results for a symmetrical steel section are as follows. Also from EN 1993-1-1. αc is the depth of the web in compression. which is hr = As fsd /tfyd (D6. is reduced to 40tε. The definition of the hole-in-web model. given in Fig. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES 80 70 As 100 New pna ac – 40te pna ac Hole 6. as shown in Fig. defined as c in Table 5. the right-hand side of this equation reduces from 41. When α > 0.7) (D6.49 and are shown in Fig. including web fillets. balances the compression in the bottom flange.5 to 1. The depth of the ‘web’.6 fyd fyd (b) 0 (c) 0 (a) Fig. 6.5) The tension in the top flange. 6. so the plastic neutral axis moves up by this amount.6(a). not the clear depth between the flanges. t and ε are such that the web is on the boundary between Class 2 and Class 3. the ‘hole’ should have zero depth when α. 6.4 to 38. They were given in ENV 1994-1-1.5 (as is usual).6) 51 .5. and the depth of the hole is thus 2(αc – 40tε). it is taken as 40 for all values of α. In principle. αc.3 of EN 1993-1-1. and ε is the correction factor for yield strength of the steel. includes the depth needed to balance the tensile force in the reinforcement. (c) Stress blocks in web for Mpl. and from Table 5. includes a small approximation. For simplicity. The original depth in compression. so that the depth of web in compression can be defined as 40tε. is also illustrated.2 of EN 1993-1-1. 40tε. discussed in Chapter 5. omits the depth of the hole and the location of the new plastic neutral axis (pna). so for longitudinal equilibrium the depth of web in tension is ht = 40tε – hr The total depth of the web is c. For α < 0.6(a). so the depth of the hole is hh = c – 40tε – ht = c – 80tε + hr (D6. Plastic resistance moment in hogging bending. (a) Cross-section of Class 3 beam with hole in web. for a section in Class 1 or 2. (b) Stress blocks for Mpl. it is 41. The depth of the hole.

and there would be two layers of bars.5 52 .3 × 0.7.2 = 57. Influence of longitudinal reinforcement on hogging moments of resistance Data and results Data for the calculations. Rd reinforcement yields G E 220 200 0 500 1000 1500 2000 As (mm2) Fig. it gives ε = 0.5%.3 This is less than 9. one layer of bars is assumed here.6/(8. so c/tε = 360/(6. in addition to the dimensions shown in Fig. Rd Class 3. in a flange with beff = 1.15.6. which is quite high for a beam in a building. The full results are shown in Fig. so fsd = 435 N/mm2 steel section: 406 × 140 UB39 with Aa = 4940 mm2. For the bottom flange. If there were no profiled sheeting (which plays no part in these calculations) the ratio for the 150 mm slab would be 0. γS = 1.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 M (kN m) 340 C Mpl.8%. where Table 5. Classification of the cross-section Clause 5.5. c = (142 – 6.6 mm c/tε = 57. so fyd = 355 N/mm2 reinforcement: fsk = 500 N/mm2. The web depth between fillets is c = 360 mm.0. Typical calculations only are given here.1(1)P refers to EN 1993-1-1.81) = 8. 6. irrespective of the area of slab reinforcement.5 × 106 mm4. 6.2 applies. are: • • • structural steel: fy = 355 N/mm2. For fy = 355 N/mm2. γM = 1.5 m.6 × 0.7. The upper limit chosen for As corresponds to a reinforcement ratio of 1. with propped construction.3)/2 – 10. hole in web F Mel. For simplicity.81.81) = 70. Ia = 124. Rd Class 2 320 B H 300 A 280 Mpl. 6. Rd bottom flange yields 260 J 240 Mel. so the flange is in Class 1.

095 + 228(0. Rd for Class 3 section with As = 267 mm2 The hole-in-web method is now used.328) = 288 kN m This agrees with the result for the Class 2 member. a. the depth of the hole is hh = 360 – 408 + 52 = 4 mm (5) From equation (D6. Steps 1 and 2 are as above.3 × 0. because this section is at the class boundary. by calculating Mpl.5 kN m (This value is not calculated directly because of the complex shape of each ‘flange’ which includes the web fillets. a.6(b).721 × 106 mm3 so Mpl. Mpl. point A in Fig. the depth of web for this force is hr = 116/(6. This is shown as ABCD in Fig. α > 0. Wpl = 0.355 = 340 kN (6) The stress blocks in the web are shown in Fig. the force in the reinforcement at yield: Fs = 267 × 0. a small depth of web.721 × 355 = 256 kN m (2) Find Fs. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES This is less than 72.5 this gives α = 0.7. 6.222 + 0. Here. so taking moments. or.3 × 0. the stress in a depth of web hr/2 changes from +fyd to –fyd. a. Hence. (3) The contribution of the web is deducted from Mpl.5.6. a. (3) The lever arm for the forces Fs is 286 mm. (1) Find Mpl. Addition of reinforcement increases the depth of web in compression.435 = 116 kN From equation (D6. Rd = 183. Taking moments about the bottom of the slab. Rd for the steel section. the plastic section modulus is usually found from tables. so when As = 0. Rd : Mpl. the depth of the hole is close to zero.3 × 355/4 = 183.2 in EN 1993-1-1 the limit for Class 2 is c/tε = 456/(13α – 1) For c/tε = 70. Rd = 256 + 116 × 0. Rd by the methods for both a Class 2 and a Class 3 section.) (4) From equation (D6.574. Rd for Class 2 section with As = 267 mm2 The stress blocks for the web are shown in Fig.286 = 289 kN m Mpl.7). 53 . It will be shown that this corresponds to As = 267 mm2. 6. and from Table 5. Here. Mpl. For a rolled section.362 × 6.6). 6. for a plate girder. flanges = 256 – 0.6(c).CHAPTER 6.1 – 340 × 0. Rd = 0.355) = 52 mm To balance the force Fs. the depth of web in tension is ht = 204 – 52 = 152 mm and the force in it is Ft = 152 × 6. so its class depends on As. the web is in Class 1. Mpl. 6.5).5 + 116 × 0.

This is shown by line BC in Fig.3(2) vertical forces (clause 6.6) shows that this restriction is equivalent to placing an upper limit of 40tε on hr. Rd has been calculated assuming propped construction.7.2. not recommended because: • • the authors are not aware of any experimental validation for this situation (which is uncommon in practice) Mpl.3(2)). using the elastic stress distribution. This point is relevant to the writing of software based on the code because software.2. as explained in comments on clause 5. The whole of the vertical shear is usually assumed to be resisted by the steel section. Rd is determined by yield of the bottom flange.2(3). Clause 6.2. 6.51 but the shear connectors must then be designed for Clause 6. ignoring both the interaction with the slab and vertical tension across the interface. except where the reinforcement has yielded. after which Mel. causes changes of stress within the top flange only. and the hole reaches its maximum depth. The stress in the reinforcement governs until As reaches 451 mm2 (point J).2. and EN 1993-1-530 where necessary. It is.or H-section. Rd for As > 267 mm2 Similar calculations for higher values of As give curve AB in Fig. it is evident that the plastic bending resistance is increased by ∆Mpl. the effect is significant where the depth of the steel beam is only twice that of the slab. as illustrated in Example 6. This can also be a consequence of vertical shear. A Class 4 web can occur in a plate girder. at As = 1048 mm2. ht = 0. with increasing depths of hole until. The bending resistance given by this method no longer approaches that given by elastic theory (as it should. For solid slabs. as in previous codes for composite beams.2. ∆As say. 6. tends to be used blindly. This enables the design rules of EN 1993-1-1. 6. as the slenderness of the web in compression approaches the Class 3/4 boundary). 100 mm here. The assumption can be conservative where the slab is in compression.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Mpl. Mel. Use of the method with the new plastic neutral axis in the top flange is excluded by Eurocode 3. consideration of equilibrium shows that the slab must make some contribution to shear resistance. In this example.2.2. In composite plate girders with vertical stiffeners. The simpler alternative is to follow Eurocode 3. Even where it is in tension and cracked in flexure. Resistance to vertical shear 54 . the concrete slab can contribute to the anchorage of a tension field in the web. Rd is being calculated using a model where the compressive strain in the steel bottom flange is so high that the rotation capacity associated with a Class 2 section may not be available.2.2 Clause 6. Elastic resistance to bending For simplicity. Rd ª ∆As fyd hs where hs is the height of the reinforcement above the interface.50 but diminishes as this ratio increases. the new plastic neutral axis reaches the top of the web.2 is for beams without web encasement. 6. Taking moments about the interface. Further increase in As. Equation (D6. This is shown by curves EF and GH in Fig. once written. to be used.5. in any case.7. so in principle a check should be made that the web is not in Class 4. but is most unlikely in a rolled I. the Class 3/4 boundary is reached at As = 3720 mm2. Web in Class 4 The hole-in-web method is available only for webs in Class 3.2.7. Any slab reinforcement that increases hr above this value moves the section back into Class 3.

denoted Mf. Rd by the shear buckling resistance Vb. as shown in Example 6.2. If the change is small.2: resistance to bending and vertical shear Vertical shear is more likely to reduce resistance to bending in a continuous beam than in a simply-supported one. because of shear buckling. 6. Rd Mel. and clause 6. Rd /Mpl.2.2. Vpl.4 is straightforward.4(3) applies. These lead to values of MEd. fl Mf. It is fairly easy to check if a given combination of these action effects can be resisted – but calculation of bending resistance for a given vertical shear is difficult. Where the design yield strength of the web is reduced to allow for vertical shear.2.5) and VRd is the resistance in shear. Resistance to bending and vertical shear (dimensions in mm) Bending and vertical shear The methods of clause 6. the application of clause 6.8) These symbols relate to the steel section only. This is calculated in Example 6. Rd 328 fyd (b) (a) Fig.2. longitudinal stresses are found by elastic theory. 6.2. Example 6. Where the shear resistance VRd is less than the plastic resistance to shear.4(1) be neglected until the shear force exceeds half of the shear resistance (clause 6.4 reduce bending resistance unless the shear is quite high.0 100 43 48 0. This example is therefore based on one of the few UB sections where web buckling can occur. Rd Mb. the effect on a Class 3 section in hogging bending is to increase the depth of web in compression.8. In clause 6.4(2) replaces Vpl. clause 6.4(1)).5 132 Bending resistance 0 102 108 180 102 213 100 213 118 326 Mpl. For this reason.2.CHAPTER 6.2. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES VEd/VRd VRd is the lesser of Vpl. the new plastic neutral axis may be within the top flange. For a composite section. For a higher shear force. For beams. the bending resistance is that provided by the flanges alone. For a design shear force equal to VRd. Rd by lateral–torsional buckling. Rd and Vb. Where the web is not susceptible to shear buckling. Rd. Where it is reduced to Mb.2. which is then checked to EN 1993-1-5. and the hole-in-web method is inapplicable.2.2. the interaction may Clause 6. interaction between bending and shear does not begin until a higher shear force than VRd /2 is present. Both EN 1993-1-1 and EN 1994-1-1 use a parabolic interaction curve.2.2. Rd.2. Rd.2. depending on the class of the cross-section. Rd)(2VEd /VRd – 1)2 £ 1 (D6.2.2. The section is then treated as Class 3 or 4. if S355 steel 55 .8(a). where ρ = [(2VEd /VRd) – 1]2 (6. Rd 1.2. NEd and VEd acting on the steel section. Shear stress does not significantly Clause 6. The bending resistance at VEd = 0 may be the elastic or the plastic value.8.2.2. the hole-in-web model can still be used. the rule given there is essentially MEd /MRd + (1 – Mf.4(3) EN 1993-1-5.2.4(2) the reduction factor for the design yield strength of the web is (1 – ρ).4(2) Clause 6.2. It refers to Clause 6. Rd or Mpl. 6. a. and it is instructive to consider its influence on a beam with bending resistance found by the hole-in-web method.4 are summarized in Fig. as shown in Fig.

5 The resistance of this unstiffened web to shear buckling is found using clauses 5. the method of Example 6. the depth of the compressive stress-blocks in the web is 20tε.328) – 100 × 0. shown in Fig. The value for ε should be based on the full yield strength of the web.118 + 0.9) From plastic theory. with As = 750 mm2. The use of the reduced yield strength would increase ε and so reduce the depth of the ‘hole’ in the web. the tensile force in the reinforcement is Fs = 750 × 0. ρ = [(2VEd /VRd) – 1]2 = (600/475 – 1)2 = 0. 406 × 140 UB39. hw = 381 mm. as in Fig. 6.2/(6.81) = 90. and for S355 steel. These clauses are usually applied to plate girders. From EN 1993-1-1. It is the section used in Example 6. The result would then depend on the method of construction.2. 6. so each block is 102 mm deep.2. as found by the method of EN 1993-1-1 for a rolled I-section.5 kN m Taking moments about the bottom of the slab. a. and so is now 228 × 331/355 = 213 kN The tensile force in the web is therefore 2 × 213 – 326 = 100 kN and the longitudinal forces are as shown in Fig.2 and 5. The bending resistance will be calculated when the design vertical shear is VEd = 300 kN. 6. the depth of web in compression that is above the neutral axis of the I-section is 326/(2 × 0.1.6(a). with longitudinal reinforcement of area As = 750 mm2.3 × 0. assuming a web of area hwtw. so the hole-in-web method is applied. where η is a factor for which EN 1993-1-5 recommends the value 1.15 = 326 kN (D6.068) × 355 = 331 N/mm2.1. Rd. Ignoring the corner fillets of this rolled section.1. From Example 6. Mpl. 6.1.3) = 78 mm This places the cross-section in Class 3. resistance to shear buckling must be checked if hw/tw > 72ε/η. the force in each stress block should be found using the reduced yield strength.6(c). ε = 0.6. For hogging bending. and that there are transverse stiffeners at the supports. All other data are as in Example 6. Mpl.4(2). so hwη/twε = 381 × 1.10) For this cross-section in bending only.3 of EN 1993-1-5.043 Mpl. flanges = 183. However.2. which would be unconservative.81. for which hw is the clear depth between the flanges. From clause 6.331 × 6. Rd = 314 kN m The alternative to this method would be to use elastic theory. From Fig. Rd = 475 kN which is 85% of Vpl. Rd = 307 kN m (D6.068 The reduced yield strength of the web is (1 – 0.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 is used.5 + 326 × 0. that there is no contribution from the flanges.5/1.8(b). Rd = 183. The result is Vb. 56 .1 + 213(0. gives Mpl. not on the reduced yield strength.

3.3.3.2. clause 6.4 57 .2(2). but when it satisfies clause 5.3 should therefore be checked.3.1. In practice.4.3 to be susceptible. Scope Clause 6.2.3.3–6. except that lateral–torsional buckling is not mentioned in clause 6.3.3(2).3(2) and 6.3 are based on the concept of superposition of resistances of composite and reinforced concrete members.3.CHAPTER 6. steel sections in buildings are almost certain to be in Class 1 or 2.1(2) limits the slenderness of the encased web to d/tw £ 124ε. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES 6. with encasement.53. 153–154 of Johnson and Molenstra.1(6)P).3.5. The references to EN 1992-1-1 are intended to ensure that the web encasement retains its shear resistance at a shear strain sufficient to cause yielding of the steel web. a web-encased IPE 450 section in S420 steel is an example. to clause 6. This obviously increases the cost of fabrication.3.3(1) Clause 6.4. They are provided to ensure the integrity of the encased section. Clause 6. 6. Moment– shear interaction is treated in clause 6. in accordance with EN 1994-1-252 it enables a Class 3 web to be upgraded to Class 2. the comments on clause 6.4(2) it improves resistance to buckling in shear.1(2) The rules for resistance to bending. Clause 6.4. transport and erection.3.3. Continuous beams that do not satisfy clause 6.3.3(1) shows that no account need be taken of web buckling in shear. and to bending and vertical shear The rules in clause 6. Encasement greatly improves resistance to lateral–torsional buckling.54 so a contribution from them could be used here.5.3. It is known from research on ‘Perfobond’ shear connectors (longitudinal flange plates projecting into the slab.3.3(2) it improves resistance to combined bending and shear.3(1). 6. but welds to stirrups may be too brittle.3) it widens significantly the range of steel sections that are not susceptible to lateral– torsional buckling (clause 6. Resistance to bending Clause 6. Resistance to vertical shear. with longitudinal reinforcement.3. However. and pp.3(1)(h)) it increases resistance to vertical shear. This concept has been used in Japan for decades. compensation for the weakness of the bottom flange in fire.3. in design of structures for earthquake resistance. To avoid shear buckling. but not for web encasement.4.6.2 Clause 6. Clause 6. Partial shear connection is permitted for a concrete flange.1. clause 6. clause 6.4 in a manner consistent with the rules for uncased sections. The resistance to longitudinal shear provided by studs within the encasement is found in the usual way. but no guidance is given on the contribution from bars that pass through holes in the web or stirrups welded to the web.3.5.2(7).2(2) 6. The load–slip properties of different types of shear connection should be compatible (clause 6.3(2) it has many advantages for design: • • • • • • it provides complete fire resistance for the web and.3.3. Example 6.3 is applicable only to these.3. to clause 6.3. it is possible for a beam within the scope of clause 6. with holes through which bars pass) that these bars provide shear connection with good slip properties. The shear connection must be designed to ensure that the shear force is shared between the steel web and the concrete encasement. in accordance with clauses 5.3 Clause 6. and the slenderness limit for a Class 2 compression flange to be increased by 40% (clause 5. casting one side at a time. Resistance of cross-sections of beams for buildings with partial encasement Encasement in concrete of the webs of steel beams is normally done before erection. correspond to those for uncased sections of the same class.44 are relevant.3.

but the same imperfection factors and buckling curves are used. The method is based closely on clause 6.3.4. The reference in these clauses to the use of γM1 is provided because this is a check on instability.2(2) Clause 6. the construction phase is rarely critical in practice. The general method of clause 6.4.3.3(1)(f) is relevant). but a National Annex could define different values. Bottom flanges in compression should always be restrained laterally at supports (clause 6.0). General Clause 6.9(b).4. but no detailed guidance on the calculation of Mcr is given in either EN 1993-1-1 or EN 1994-1-1.4. In a long span.7. The reference in clause 6.4. It should not be assumed that a point of contraflexure is equivalent to a lateral restraint.2 of EN 1993-1-1.2.5(3). Clause 6. The length in compression may include most of the span. the concrete slab provides lateral restraint to the steel member. Although not stated.4. to a mid-span cross-section of a beam with the slab at bottom-flange level (see Fig. Any steel top flange in compression that is not so stabilized should be checked for lateral buckling (clause 6. The determination of MRd for a Class 3 section differs from that of Mel.1. Steel bottom flanges are in compression only in cantilevers and continuous beams.4.2(4)). The use of this method for a two-span beam is illustrated in Example 6. The reduction factor is applied to the design resistance moment MRd. Rd in clause 6.g.1.4(6) only in that the limiting stress fcd for concrete in compression need not be considered. for example.2 of EN 1993-1-1. is applicable.4. 6.3.1(2)) using clause 6. the relevant rule. The buckling resistance moment Mb.2). Rd given by equation (6.1(1) It is assumed in this section that in completed structures for buildings. Expressions for MRd include the design yield strength fyd.4.5.1(3) 6. It is necessary to take account of the method of construction. The recommended values for γM0 and γM1 are the same (1. excluding minor changes such as reinforcement details and effects of cracking of concrete.2(1)) and the relative slenderness.6. Fig.6.2(1) to 6.2.1(3) to EN 1993-1-1 provides a general method for use where neither of the methods of EN 1994-1-1 are applicable (e.4. it is implied that the span concerned is of uniform composite section.5(1) and 6. Buckling of web-encased beams without a concrete flange has been studied. the steel top flanges of all composite beams will be stabilized laterally by connection to a concrete or composite slab (clause 6.5(2) relate to the classification of the top flange.4. given in clause 6. Verification of lateral–torsional buckling of continuous composite beams with cross-sections in Class 1.4. and also restrains its rotation about a longitudinal axis. This applies particularly during unpropped construction. The rules on maximum spacing of connectors in clauses 6. In a composite beam.4.4.4. in the absence of any better-established alternatives. based on the use of a computed value of the elastic critical moment Mcr. For lateral–torsional buckling.2(3). it may be necessary to check a steel beam that is composite along only part of its length.6) must exceed the highest applied moment MEd within the unbraced length of compression flange considered.55 However. because the loading is so much less than the design total load. They differ in detail from the method of clause 6. Clause 6. λLT (clause 6. 2 and 3 for buildings This general method of design is written with distortional buckling of bottom flanges in mind. which is defined in clauses 6. Design methods for composite beams must take account of the bending of the web.5. when that span is lightly loaded and both adjacent spans are fully loaded. and thus only to local buckling.1(1)).4. for a Class 4 beam). is less restrictive.4.4.2(1) Clause 6.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 6.1(2) Clause 6.2 of EN 1993-1-1. There is correspondence in the definitions of the reduction factor χLT (clause 6.5.6.2.2(3) 58 . Lateral buckling is always associated with distortion (change of shape) of the cross-section. for buildings. 6. Lateral–torsional buckling of composite beams 6. It would not apply.

Ed + Mc. given by the ratio F/δ.4. Rd = Ma.4. can be found from clauses 6.4. Rd which is χLT ≥ (Ma. If it is bottom-flange compression in both cases. From equation (6.4. continuous along the span. Where the structure is such that a pair of steel beams and a concrete flange attached to them can be modelled as an inverted-U frame (Fig.9. The flexibility δ/F is the sum of flexibilities due to: Clause 6. Rd is lower for unpropped construction. (b) (a) Elastic critical buckling moment Clause 6.2(6) Clause 6. Ed)/Mel. then Mel. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES A B ds h tw tf a (a) C d hs F F d L L D q0 (b) (c) L1 L2 0.4.8 ≥ L2 /L1 £ 1.6) the verification is MEd = Ma.4.2(5) to 6. Rd (c) The total hogging bending moment MEd may be almost independent of the method of construction. 6.2(4) requires the determination of the elastic critical buckling moment. From equation (6. Ed + kMc. Ed where the subscript c indicates the action effect on the composite member.CHAPTER 6. Analysis is based on its stiffness per unit length.2(5) Clause 6.2(5) gives conditions that define this frame.2(4) Clause 6. 6. Rd may be different for propped and unpropped construction. the stress limit that determines Mel.2(7). The lateral restraint from the slab can usually be assumed to be rigid.25 L1 Fig.11).4. Ed £ χLT Mel.4. However.2(7) 59 . Ed + Mc. Clause 6. taking account of the relevant restraints. the rotational restraining stiffness at top-flange level. 6.4) MRd = Mel. U-frame action and distortional lateral buckling Lateral buckling for a Class 3 cross-section with unpropped construction The influence of method of construction on the verification of a Class 3 composite section for lateral buckling is as follows. so their stiffnesses have to be calculated. where δ is the lateral displacement caused by a force F (Fig.9(a)). Rd = MEd /Mel. and the limit on χLT from equation (c) is more severe. ks. ks.

10) flexibility of the shear connection.8) for stiffness ks. This ‘continuous U-frame’ concept has long been used in the design of steel bridges.2(9) allow for the additional stiffness provided by web encasement.or H-frames (Fig. read ‘should be unstiffened’. where F is now a force on a discrete U-frame. Theory for the continuous inverted-U frame model A formula for the elastic critical buckling moment for the U-frame model was given in Annex B of ENV 1994-1-1. The model used for equation (6.4. the span length).58 Where stiffeners are present.11) is from 10 to 40 times the value from equation (6.4. which would be relevant to composite beams if the steel sections had vertical web stiffeners.7. L is the length of the beam between points at which the bottom flange of the steel member is laterally restrained (typically. the elastic critical buckling moment at an internal support of a continuous beam is Mcr = (kcC4/L)[(Ga Iat + ks L2/π2)Ea Iafz]1/2 (D6. depending on the ratio of flange breadth to web thickness. which predominates: 1/k2 from equation (6. The shear connectors closest to those stiffeners would then have to transmit almost the whole of the bending moment Fh (Fig. nor is it certain that the shear connection and the adjacent slab would be sufficiently strong. the cracked flexural stiffness of a composite slab. This leads to equation (6. Iat is the torsional moment of area of the steel section.8 kN/mm2).9) bending of the steel web. The words ‘may be unstiffened’ in clause 6. in the authors’ opinion. The conditions in clause 6. It has been found56 that this last flexibility can be neglected in design to EN 1994-1-1. k2 from equation (6. 6. is derived in Appendix A. Clause 6.13) (D6. such as U.4.11) where: kc is a property of the composite section.2(9) Concrete-encased web Clauses 6. Ga is the shear modulus for steel (Ga = Ea/[2(1 + υ)] = 80. The last of the three flexibilities listed above might then not be negligible.3(1)(f) are misleading.2(6). as there is a risk of local shear failure within the slab.2(7) and 6. given below.3(1) referred to from clause 6. the resistance of the connection above each stiffener to repeated transverse bending should be established. the factor kc is given by kc = (hsIy /Iay)/[(hs2/4 + ix2)/e + hs] with e = AIay /[Aa zc(A – Aa)] (D6.57 There is a similar ‘discrete U-frame’ concept.4.4. The problem is avoided in bridge design by using transverse steel members.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 • • • bending of the slab.4.11) is explained in Appendix A. used in Example 6. 6.49 but was removed from EN 1994-1-1. as the resistance model is based on both theory and research on unstiffened webs. It should. ks is the rotational stiffness defined in clause 6.9(a)).12) 60 .10(a)). but where these are secondary beams.10). Subject to conditions discussed below.2(7) Clause 6. The calculation of ks is straightforward. This is significant: for rolled steel sections. as it was considered to be ‘textbook material’. There is at present no simple method of verification. the method is not applicable to the primary beams because condition (e) is not satisfied. apart from finding (EI)2. Where the cross-section of the steel member is symmetrical about both axes. and Iafz is the minor-axis second moment of area of the steel bottom flange. it is sufficiently unfamiliar to be worth giving here.4. Encasement will often remove any susceptibility to lateral–torsional buckling. However.4. C4 is a property of the distribution of bending moment within length L.2(5) are commonly satisfied in buildings by the beams that support composite slabs. An approximate method. which may not be negligible: 1/k1 from equation (6. Bottom flanges of primary beams can sometimes be stabilized by bracing from the secondary beams.

except at supports. ix2 = (Iay + Iaz)/Aa. The calculation method is shown in Example 6. also on the parameter ηB2 = ks L4/(EaIωD) where ks. L and Ea are as above. This has led59 to an alternative expression for the elastic critical moment.2–47.60 Predictions of Mcr by this method and by equation (D6.3 and A.3. in the resistance of the beam to hogging bending. Four graphs of these values are given in Hanswille. 6.1 gives limits to the steel grade and overall depth of the steel member. Accounts of its origin are available in both English61 and German. Further explanation is given in Appendix A. and those for a compressed member on an elastic foundation. in practice.3.56 and is similar to that used in the treatment of lateral–torsional buckling of haunched beams. It is now considered that other requirements are such that these will. its use requires computed values that depend on the bending-moment distribution and. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES where: hs is the distance between the centres of the flanges of the steel section.7. Three further conditions were given in ENV 1994-1-1. This value is given in a Note to clause 6. When checking lateral stability.4. where Iaz and Aa are properties of the steel section. Iay is the corresponding second moment of area of the steel section.CHAPTER 6. Equation (D6. The coefficient C4 was given in a set of tables. Four of the conditions for the use of these formulae are given in paragraphs (c) to (f) of clause 6.4. As calculations for the U-frame model are quite extensive. to its flexural stiffness.2. determined by numerical analyses. Like equation (D6.11) for the elastic critical buckling moment. The coefficient accounts for the increased resistance to lateral buckling where the bending moment is not uniform along the member. for beams with IPE 500 and HEA 1000 rolled sections.62 It is outlined in Johnson and Fan. Iy is the second moment of area for major-axis bending of the cracked composite section of area A. and zc is the distance between the centroid of the steel beam and the mid-depth of the slab. This method was found to agree with the finite-element results for both internal and external spans. a simplified method has been developed from it. Its Table 6. taking account of restraint to warping. These results are derived from equation (D6. which can be modified by a National Annex.3(1) defines continuous beams and cantilevers that may be designed without lateral bracing to the bottom flange. in which its range is 6. Any National Annex that defines a lower limit should therefore also state if the method is permitted. Alternative theory for the elastic critical moment There is an analogy between the differential equations for distortional lateral buckling.3(1).63 The basis is that there shall be no reduction. be satisfied. These values are given in Appendix A (see Figs A. and not an equivalent uniform value.3 of EN 1993-1-1. and IωD is the sectorial moment of inertia of the steel member related to the centre of the restrained steel flange. These related to the resistance of the slab part of the U-frame to hogging transverse bending in the plane of the U-frame.11) were compared with results of finite-element analyses.4).4.59 and a more general set in Hanswille et al.4. and to the spacing of shear connectors. Clause 6.11) was found to be satisfactory for internal spans. provided that it is an IPE or HE rolled section.4. The contribution from partial encasement is allowed for in paragraph (h) of this clause. but to be less accurate generally for external spans.3(1) 61 . It is assumed that this is achieved when λLT £ 0. for this method. Simplified verification for buildings without direct calculation Clause 6. the distribution of bending moments corresponding to C4 must be used as the action effects. and unconservative by over 30% in some cases. due to lateral buckling. making assumptions that further reduce the scope of the method. This suggests that it needs further validation.11).6.

and all Table 6. From equation (D6.0 Á 1 + w s ˜ Á s ˜ 4 bf tf ¯ Ë tw ¯ Ë 0.11) is given in Appendix A. cased (18.15) Limiting values of F. cased (15.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 The slenderness λLT is a function of the variation of bending moment along the span.1.14).3(1) on spans and loading result from this work. Use of UB rolled sections with encased webs to clause 5.6 11.8) No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Section 457 × 152 UB52 457 × 152 UB67 457 × 191 UB67 457 × 191 UB98 533 × 210 UB82 533 × 210 UB122 610 × 229 UB125 610 × 229 UB140 610 × 305 UB149 610 × 305 UB238 62 .25 Ê fy ˆ ÁEC ˜ Ë a 4¯ 0. Criteria for other rolled I. The horizontal ‘S’ line at or next above the plotted point F gives the highest grade of steel for which the method of clause 6.1. For uncased beams that satisfy the conditions that apply to equation (D6. but few UB sections in S355 steel do so. The limitations in paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 6.3(2) It is shown in Appendix A (equation (DA.5 14. A.83 S275 steel. Flim say.75 Ê tf ˆ Áb ˜ Ë f¯ 0. Simplified expression for λ LT .3.1.2 9. This was studied using various loadings on continuous beams of the types shown in Fig.5. In ENV 1994-1-1. and on beams with cantilevers.9(c). a section parameter F is calculated.9(a). the slenderness ratio for a Class 1 or Class 2 cross-section may conservatively be taken as λLT Ê t h ˆÊh ˆ = 5. uncased (13. that conformed to Table 6.3 can be used for that section.15) 16. and are not concrete encased. without direct calculation Right-hand side of expression (D6. bf is the breadth of the bottom flange.1 applies only to IPE and HE rolled sections. are given in Appendix A (see Fig.5 12. have a double symmetrical steel section.4)) that the effect of web encasement is to increase Flim by at least 29%. Many of the heavier wide-flange sections in S275 steel qualify for verification without direct calculation. and other symbols are as in Fig.5 (D6. 6.1 13. The basis for the method is as follows.75 Ê tf ˆ Áb ˜ Ë f¯ 0.14) The derivation from equation (D6. All the sections shown in Table 6.1 and a geometrical condition similar to the limit on F.0) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes S355 steel. it is Ê t h ˆÊh ˆ F = Á1 + w s ˜ Á s ˜ 4 bf tf ¯ Ë tw ¯ Ë 0.9) No No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes S355 steel. with the values of Flim in the column headings. To check if a particular section qualifies for ‘simplified verification’. and use of British UB rolled sections Table 6. verification without direct calculation was permitted for hot-rolled sections of ‘similar shape’ to IPE and HE sections.4. Most of the terms in equation (D6.8 14.1 now qualify for S275 steel. In EN 1994-1-1 this has been replaced by a reference to National Annexes.14) define properties of the steel I-section. Some examples are given in Table 6.3) No No No Yes No No No No Yes Yes S275 steel.4 14. uncased (12.5) for the nominal steel grades listed in Table 6.4 12.25 (D6. in a composite beam. 6.and H-sections are deduced in Appendix A.11) for Mcr. Qualification of some UB rolled steel sections for verification of lateral–torsional stability.9 13.

This is always so where L is a complete span.64 There is no guidance in EN 1994-1-1 on the minimum strength or stiffness that a lateral restraint must have.4.2. The calculation of this compressive force involves an elastic analysis of the section. other solutions are possible (e. and may not be appropriate for distortional buckling.11).g. but for solid slabs. Provision of discrete bracing to make up a deficiency in continuous restraint is attractive in principle.2. Clause BB.3 in that EN standard for buckling of components of building structures ‘with restraints’.3. which can be over-conservative. Web encasement is thus an effective option for improving the lateral stability of a rolled steel section in a continuous composite beam. For simplicity. Laterally restrained bottom flanges except one do so for S355 steel. but the relative stiffness of the two types of restraint must be such that they are effective in parallel.1(2) of EN 1993-1-1 refers to ‘beams with sufficient restraint to the compression flange’.3. 6. This is Use of intermediate lateral bracing 63 . the design force can be reduced to 1% of the force in the flange. There is at present no simple design method better than the 2% rule quoted above. In tests at the University of Warwick. only the minimum values of C4 are given in the figures in Appendix B of this guide.63 based on BS 5950: Part 1. to take advantage of the steep moment gradient in a region of hogging bending. Clause 6. Fig. it may be cost-effective to provide discrete lateral restraint to the steel bottom flange. as in a composite beam.11) for Mcr work well for complete spans. It is suggested63 that where discrete and continuous restraints act together. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES (a) (b) Fig.2. The design methods based on equation (D6. Where the buckling resistance moment Mb. They are applicable where the half-wavelength of a buckle is less than the length L in equation (D6. defined in this way.10. a steel cross-member may be needed (Fig.3.2 should be used where the steel section does not qualify.2(1) gives the minimum ‘stable length between lateral restraints’.10(b)). were found to be effective. The method of clause 6. 6. but this is intended to apply to lateral–torsional buckling.CHAPTER 6. but become unsatisfactory (over-conservative) for short lengths of beam between lateral bracings. Further provisions for steel structures are given in EN 1993-2.3. not otherwise needed. Where the slab is composite. but does not define ‘sufficient’.4(3) of EN 1993-1-1 refers to Annex BB. 6. There is guidance in Lawson and Rackham.65 This states that a discrete restraint should be designed for 2% of the maximum compressive force in the flange. Rd as found by one of the preceding methods is significantly less than the design resistance moment MRd of the cross-sections concerned. A Note to clause 6. Another proposal is to relate the restraining force to the total compression in the flange and the web at the cross-section where the bracing is provided. This is because the correct values of the factors C4 are functions of the length between lateral restraints. the value given may be over-conservative. but where L is part of a span. clause 4.10(a)). An elastic analysis can be avoided by taking the stress in the flange as the yield stress. and the rule is unsafe near points of contraflexure.66 bracings that could resist 1% of the total compression.

1. and no flexural interaction with supporting members. with uniform steel section and no cross-sections in Class 4 illustrated at the end of Example 6.2. Is steel element a ‘rolled or equivalent welded’ section? Yes Is lLT > 0.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Elevation of beam Classify sections at A and C. a uniform steel section.2 Find Mel. the simplified method of clause 6. Is MEd < MRd at B? Yes Re-design is required (END) No Re-design is required (END) Go to Fig.4.7.2 for AB or BC? Yes Find cLT to clause 6.2 (or 0.4.4.11(a) refers to the following notes: 64 . as appropriate at both of sections A and C? No Yes Classify cross-section B. to clause 6. before Example 6. to clause 6. where the effect of providing lateral bracing is examined.5.3 is not applicable. to find new MEd at sections A.11 cover some aspects of design of an internal span of a continuous composite beam. – Is lLT > 0. Figure 6.3.4 for AB or BC? (Clause 6. Their scope is limited to cross-sections in Class 1. B and C. an uncased web. Ed at A and C by elastic global analysis for relevant arrangements of actions on steel members. Find MRd at B for full shear connection.11. (a) Flow chart for design for ultimate limit state of an internal span of a continuous beam in a building. Ed) at A. to clause 5. 5.5 A Class 1 or 2 Class 3 Yes Find MRd as Mpl.2(7)) Yes Is section Class 1 or 2? No No Yes – – – No Is lLT > 0. See Fig. 6.4 Is M Ed less than MRd or Mb.2. Rd at A and C to clause 6. 2 or 3.2(3)? No B C Find Ma. and hence find Mb.3(1) of EN 1993-1-1) No Ignore shrinkage (clause 5.4.4. B and C. Rd.4. Rd Use elastic global analysis.2(3) Use effective section in Class 2.11(b) for design of shear connection Fig. 6. for actions on steel and composite members and relevant load arrangements to find MEd (= Ma.3) Yes No Redistribute hogging bending moments Mc. It is assumed that for lateral–torsional buckling. Rd . with relevant modular ratio.4.2. Flow charts for continuous beam The flow charts in Fig.4) for either AB or BC? (See Notes (1) and (2). to clause 5. Ed to clause 5. no redistribution Find lLT at A and C. 6. Ed + Mc.

See comments on clause 6.1.6.1.6. ignoring tensile strength of concrete and tension stiffening.2.6.2.4 or 6. to clauses 6. f /PRd for region each side of B Hogging region. Do they ensure the stability of any part of the member? Yes No Check spacing to clause 6. Do you intend to use h ≥ hmin? Yes (advised) (a) Choose h ≥ hmin so that studs are ‘ductile’ No Find MRd to clauses 6.1(4)P and 6. Return to (a).6.6.1(5)? Yes (b) Choose h No (c) Choose h and find MRd such that clause 6.1. (Contd) (b) Flow chart for design of an internal span of a continuous beam in a building – shear connection 65 . Find nh = Nc.2.2.2.5(2) and revise if necessary (END) Fig. B. 6.1.1(14)? Yes Hogging region Sagging region No Find longitudinal shear flows.1.2.1 and 6. or C ? Yes Additional checks required to clause 6.3(5) Find MRd to clause 6. f found from MRd.6.1 and determine if ‘ductile’ Are all critical cross-sections in Class 1 or 2? Yes No Space connectors in accordance with the shear flow.2.4.3(5) (END) Sagging region.6.1.6.5(3) and 6.6.3(4) No Check spacing of connectors to clauses 6. to clause 6.1 or 6.6.1(3)P is satisfied Find hmin to clause 6.3(3) to 6.7(4).1.2(1) or (3)? Yes (advised) No Has it been shown that proposed connectors satisfy clauses 6. to clause 6.1. For other connectors.6. Find ns = hNc.CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES Are all critical sections in Class 1 or 2.5.1.5 Mpl.1.6.1.2.6.2.6.6.3(5) Is Mpl.6.1(1) or 6.5.1. find PRd that satisfies clause 6. or (c) No Is MRd ≥ MEd Yes Find PRd for stud connectors to clause 6.2(1) Are connectors studs to clause 6. Rd > 2.11.6.1.5 Increase h. (b).6.1.2 Use full shear connection for Nc. Rd at A. f /PRd for regions adjacent to A and C Find n = ns + nh for critical lengths AB and BC.6.3(3) Either Or No Space n connectors over AB (and CD) in accordance with longitudinal shear to clause 6.6. to clause 6.6. a.5. Are connectors ‘ductile’? Yes Space n connectors uniformly over lengths AB (and CD) to clause 6.1.2.3.

are 7.25. Rd = 781 kN m permanent: variable: λLT = 0.9 + qd) whence qd £ 17. local yielding or buckling of a web may occur where a composite beam is continuous over a steel beam that supports it. (2) If fully propped construction is used.4. The beam satisfies all the other conditions except that in paragraph (b). as it gives lower hogging moments at internal supports.3 is used wherever possible. so are applicable to webs where the neutral axis is not at mid-depth. Details are shown in Figs 6.7.3(1).62 = 9.2. it is 11. Limitations of the simplified method are now illustrated.4) is less than 10%.6.4.5 × 2. ‘Cracked’ analysis may then be preferred. Relevant results for hogging bending of the composite section at support B in Fig. Rolled I-sections in Class 1 or 2 may not be 66 . Rd = 687 kN m The design ultimate loads per unit length of beam. from Table 6.4(11. with reference to the twospan beam treated in Example 6. which will be found after the comments on clause 6. This result illustrates a common feature of ‘simplified’ methods.75 kN/m2 which is a big reduction from the 7 kN/m2 specified. The limits to redistribution of hogging moments include allowance for the effects of cracking. Transverse forces on webs Clause 6. They have to cover so wide a variety of situations that they are over-conservative for some of them.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 (1) The elastic global analysis is simpler if the ‘uncracked’ model is used. In buildings.2. as is usual in composite beams. which limits its depth to 400 mm.5.5 The local resistance of an unstiffened and unencased web to forces (typically. This uses an IPE 450 steel section in grade S355 steel.42 kN/m 26.5 consists mainly of references to EN 1993-1-5.4(4)). which increases the depth limit to 600 mm. vertical forces) applied through a steel flange can be assumed to be the same in a composite member as in a steel member. The provisions of Section 8 of EN 1993-1-5 are not limited to rolled sections. The simplest way to satisfy paragraph (g) would be to encase the web in concrete. The design method of clause 6. Ma. The condition in paragraph (b) is quite severe.42/35.4. and the permanent load to 11. 6.8/(1. is illustrated in Example 6. In this case.3: lateral–torsional buckling of two-span beam Mb.7.43 Example 6.26.67 = 0.4. far below the specified minimum of 0. and is continuous over two 12 m spans.5) = 4. with application of the theory in Appendix A. so clause 6.9 ≥ 0. for its ratio of permanent to total load is only 9. The length of the method is such that the ‘simplified verification’ of clause 6. Ed may be zero at all cross-sections.4. even though the required reduction in λLT (to £ 0. 6.23–6.23(c) are as follows: Mpl. but redistribution is not permitted where allowance for lateral–torsional buckling is required (clause 5.80 + 1.25 kN/m The steel section fails the condition in paragraph (g) of clause 6.8 kN/m This corresponds to a characteristic floor loading of 17.9 kN/m.

1.5.6 are also applicable.2(4) (columns) and 9. with anchoring devices if necessary.1(2)P.6.1. though there is little doubt that effectively rigid projections into the concrete slab.1(1) Clause 6. but reference is made to clause 6. The effect of sharp curvature is illustrated by reference to an IPE 400 section of grade S355 steel. so the erection condition may be critical.6. should almost always be stiffened (clause 6. but some provisions in clause 6. Clause 6.4.1. Shear connection 6. Assuming that its plastic resistance moment is to be used.47 In practice.6. Provisions for shear connection by friction are given in clauses 6. could occur where a large compression flange is restrained from buckling out of its plane by a weak or slender web.1. which can arise from a very small separation.2.6. ‘Separation’.1(7)P Clause 6.6.6. clause 6.6. means separation sufficient for the curvatures of the two elements to be different at a cross-section.1.CHAPTER 6.1 m. but this situation is rare in buildings.1(7)P. as a function of the ratio of flange area to web area. the minimum permitted radius of curvature given by clause 8(2) of EN 1993-1-5 is 2. in clause 6. treated as effective Class 2.1(5) Clause 6.1(3)P Clause 6.6.1.1.1. A plate girder launched over roller supports cannot be stiffened at every section.1.5. clause 6.1.6.1 (composite slabs). ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES susceptible.3.1(3) Clause 6.1. is one reason why neither bond nor adhesives can be used to supplement the shear resistance of studs. or for there to be a risk of local corrosion.7. Clause 6.1(2)P Clause 6. designers will not wish to calculate required and available slip capacities.1(8) is intended to ensure that other types of connector.1(8) 67 .6 is applicable to shear connection in composite beams. General Basis of design Clause 6.2 6.1(1) refers also to ‘other types of composite member’. This form of web buckling cannot occur with straight rolled steel I-sections. Flange-induced web buckling.1(3)P) is relied on in the many provisions that permit uniform spacing of connectors. Similarly.6. Clause 6.6.1(6)P. as is usual. Its essential difference from bond is that there must be compressive force across the relevant surfaces. but a Class 3 web. The slenderness limit is reduced if the flange is curved in elevation. None of the design methods in EN 1994-1-1 takes account of differences of curvature.6. tests on beams with unheaded studs show separation. can do so. to ensure that the web can resist the radial component of the force in the flange. The need for compatibility of load/slip properties.1.1(4)P uses the term ‘ductile’ for connectors that have deformation capacity sufficient to assume ideal plastic behaviour of the shear connection. especially after inelastic behaviour begins. contribute to shear connection.6.2. Flange-induced buckling is clearly a rare problem for hot-rolled sections.6.2(1) enables such calculations to be avoided by limiting the extent of partial shear connection and by specifying the type and range of shear connectors. and from the tendency of the slab to ride up on the weld collars.6.6. The standard heads of stud connectors have been found to be large enough to control separation.1. friction is not excluded.7. ‘Inelastic redistribution of shear’ (clause 6.6. Shear connection in composite columns is treated in clause 6.1. Clause 6. This arises from local variations in the flexural stiffnesses of the concrete and steel elements.1.5. Although the uncertain effects of bond are excluded by clause 6.1(4)P Clause 6.6. Clause 6. The combined use of studs and block-and-hoop connectors has been discouraged for the same reason. Clause 6. Even where most of the load is applied by or above the slab. such as bolt heads and ends of flange plates.1.6.1. and the rule in clause 6. This usually arises from wedging action.1. which has been cold curved about its major axis.4.6.1(5) quantifies this as a characteristic slip capacity of 6 mm. headed studs used for end anchorage in composite slabs are treated in clause 9. This is prevented by specifying a limit to the web slenderness.7.1.1(6)P Clause 6.1(3)).4.1 for the design resistance of headed stud connectors. before erection. and needs to be checked only for plate girders of unusual proportions and for members sharply curved in elevation.5.

which were within the scope of ENV 1994-1-1.1(12) Clause 6.2 and 6. size and spacing of the connectors. One research study67 found that 70% of the shear on a stud was resisted by its weld collar. clause 6.1. and connectors are placed in groups in holes in the slabs. It acts as horizontal shear reinforcement for the concrete flanges. These conclusions seem optimistic when compared with the results of some push tests using solid slabs.6.48 The conclusions led to the approval of certain stud connectors as ‘ductile’ Clause 6.2.1. available slips were found to be greater than 6 mm. angles. hoops. Push tests on stud connectors have been reported in scores of publications. In bridges.1(13) says that connectors should resist at least the design shear force. reinforcement in accordance with clause 6. leads to application rules in clause 6. Larger concentrated forces occur where precast slabs are used. Anchors are inevitably subjected also to shear.6. and that the local (triaxial) stress in the concrete was several times its cube strength. where splitting can cause premature failure.1(9) refers to ‘direct tension’.1.1. Their design for Class 1 and 2 sections is based on the design bending resistances (see clause 6.6. Clause 6. but few tests were continued for slips exceeding 3 mm.6.g.6.6.6. and is referred to in Section 8 of EN 1994-2. in haunches or edge beams) as well as on the shape. because these are the situations for which test data are available. meaning the action effect. so this relaxation is 68 .11(b) is for a beam without web encasement. Limitation on the use of partial shear connection in beams for buildings As noted in comments on clause 6. Where it is present. Connectors defined as ‘ductile’ are those that had been shown to have (or were believed to have) a characteristic slip capacity (defined in clause B.1. and may assist in following the comments on clauses 6.6. Slip capacity depends on the degree of containment of the connector by the concrete and its reinforcement. Clause 6. but connectors behave much better in beams reinforced as required by the Eurocode than in small push-test specimens.43. Clause 6.2).2.6.2(1) (clause 6.1(14)P Resistance to uplift is much influenced by the reinforcement near the bottom of the slab.1(10)P is a principle that has led to many application rules. and hence on a shear force that normally exceeds the action effect. Clause 6. They have all been omitted because of their limited use and to shorten the code.1.1. The information has been summarized.1(13) Clause 6. Clause 6.1. but the 6 mm limit has been confirmed68 by four push tests with cylinder strengths fcm ª 86 N/mm2.6.6 should be provided in the test specimens.69 These results and other test data led to a relaxation of the limiting effective spans at which low degrees of shear connection can be used. ENV 1994-1-1 included provisions for many types of connector other than studs: block connectors.1. the rules for partial shear connection are based on an available slip of 6 mm. Prediction of slip capacity is difficult.6.6.2(3) 6.2.1.6.1.1(10)P Clause 6. The flow chart in Fig. This applies only where the conditions in paragraphs (a)–(e) of clause 6.1. For certain types of profiled sheeting.6. its design magnitude must be determined. as shown in the lower part of Fig. Transverse reinforcement performs a dual role.6. anchors.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Clause 6.1.1(12) is intended to permit the use of other types of connector.5(4)) exceeding 6 mm. One might expect a lower available slip from studs in very strong concrete. and hence on the location of free surfaces (e. so if the resistance of an anchor is to be checked by testing. Load from a travelling crane hanging from the steel member is an example. The principle on partial shear connection.4(a). The shear forces are inevitably ‘concentrated’.2(3) are satisfied.1(14)P. 6. This influences the detailing of the reinforcement near these holes.3.1(9) Clause 6.1.1.6. and controls and limits splitting. and friction-grip bolts.2(1)).3.47.6. There is no validated theoretical model that includes all the many relevant variables.1. and also friction-grip bolts. Its detailing is critical where connectors are close to a free surface of the slab. it can be caused by the differential deflexions of adjacent beams under certain patterns of imposed load.

1.1.1(3)P to 6. the interpolation method. The interpretation of ‘appropriate’ can depend on the method of analysis used and the ductility of the connectors.2(1) gives n/nf ≥ 0. The connectors must be ‘ductile’. equal steel flanges. and stud connectors. n/nf = 0.2 for ‘ductile’ connectors.6. to be superimposed. but can often be smaller than the bottom flange. 6.55.2(3) are satisfied.6.1.1.1.6.6. As an example of the use of these rules. where Le is the effective span.6. Research continues on the influence on slip capacity of profile shape and the detailing of studs in troughs. Connectors corresponding to this force are then spaced accordingly. At mid-span. if the slab is composite.6. This is normally achieved by satisfying clause 6.6.2. possibly with extra ones near mid-span to satisfy the rule of clause 6. and increases the slip required by the model for partial-interaction design. where VEd is the vertical shear on the composite section. if creep is allowed for by using several modular ratios.1. Spacing of shear connectors in beams for buildings Clause 6.1. and for attachment of the connectors. One can either design using these limits. it is possible to space connectors uniformly in most beams for buildings.4(a).1. The span limits given by the lines PQ to RS are from the provisions of clause 6.1. Suppose now that the span of the beam is 12 m.CHAPTER 6. a uniform cross-section in Class 2.1.1(5). by referring to ‘spacing’ of connectors Clause 6.48. Connectors spaced uniformly along a critical length might then have insufficient available slip. The more convenient use of uniform spacing requires the connectors to satisfy clause 6.6.3(5). The limits to the use of partial shear connection in buildings are summarized in Fig. Clause 6.3. or go to clause 6.4). but its use is not appropriate for routine design.1.6.1.1. S355 steel. The principle may be assumed to be satisfied where connectors are spaced ‘elastically’ to clause 6.3(2)P suit the spacing of the shear connectors. The cross-section is such that the required resistance to bending can be provided using 40% of full shear connection (n/nf = 0. This gives a triangular distribution of longitudinal shear.6.1.3(1)P and an ‘appropriate distribution’ of longitudinal shear. respectively.3(5).3(4) could apply to a simply-supported or a continuous beam with a large Clause 6. unless it is propped during construction or is continuous.6.1. This presumably means using vL = VEd A y /I.6.6. which has general applicability.6.6. as defined in clauses 6. Rd.6. In practice. The force in the slab at mid-span now depends on the proportion of MEd that is applied to the composite member.1(4)P and 6.6. a simply-supported beam of span 10 m is considered. which enables research-based evidence to be used.6.1. MEd is much less than Mpl. so for continuous beams clause 6. which implies (but does not require) the use of plastic resistance moments.4 may be used.61 and 0. This is why clauses 6. Clauses 6.6.1.5.1(5) provide an alternative. A smaller flange lowers the plastic neutral axis of the composite section.3(4) concrete slab and a relatively small steel top flange.4: arrangement of shear connectors 69 .1.6. and on the proportions of the cross-section.1(2)P a little. However.3(2)P requires the tension reinforcement to be curtailed to Clause 6.2(1) and 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES allowed only where the force Nc is determined by the more conservative of the two methods given in clause 6. For composite beams in sagging bending.1. and the other conditions of clause 6. or separate distributions. The preceding limits to n/nf are increased to 0.1. The design of a long-span beam with a low degree of shear connection is likely to be governed by the need to limit its deflection. the steel top flange must be wide enough to resist lateral buckling during erection. Use of an additional critical section would lead to a more suitable distribution.2.2(2) give limits on the degree of shear connection that are less liberal than those for beams with equal steel flanges.1.3(3).3(1)P extends clause 6. It has distributed loading. Clause 6. which refers to ‘longitudinal shear calculated by elastic theory’. Example 6.5(3) on maximum spacing of studs.6.

Clause 6. so the ultimate-load curvature at mid-span will be too low for the full-interaction bending resistance to be reached. There was no theoretical model for the shear resistance. even though the bending stresses could exceed the specified limits. For simplicity. which gives non-zero shear at mid-span.2.6. to define additional critical sections within the 6 m shear span of the beam. Headed stud connectors in solid slabs and concrete encasement Resistance to longitudinal shear 70 .2 6. Rd.6.2. 6.3. the characteristic shear resistances of studs are given in a table. as that is consistent with the model used for bending. set in concrete with a characteristic strength fck and a mean secant modulus Ecm. The longitudinal forces in the slab at the Class 3 sections are then calculated by elastic theory.3. For continuous beams where MEd at mid-span is much less than Mpl. because its heading does not say ‘resistance of all cross-sections’.2 are given in terms of effective span.2. At mid-span. The envelope of design vertical shear from the global analysis should be used. The total shear flow between a support and mid-span is the sum of the longitudinal forces at those points.2(3). could occur first.6.2.6.2(3) This absence of ‘all’ from the heading is also relevant to the use of clause 6.2.1. because this gives an overestimate in cracked regions.8 (see below) are relevant.1(1) essential. The simpler and recommended method is to assume that it does apply. and calculation of longitudinal shear becomes complex robustness – for otherwise longitudinal shear failure. The design for a beam with Class 3 sections at internal supports limits the curvature of those regions. This is done for two reasons: • • simplicity – for the design bending moments often lie between the elastic and plastic resistances.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Strictly.6. For distributed loading this increases the shear connection needed by only 2%. Longitudinal shear force in beams for buildings Clauses 6.1 Clause 6.6.2. The alternative would be to find the longitudinal force at mid-span by elastic theory for the moments applied to the composite section.1(1) are based on the model that a stud with a shank diameter d and an ultimate strength fu. because the limits of clause 6. in effect. Examples 6.6. Clause 6.6.6. in the present example. the method is more complex. so design equations are Clause 6.2 applies. as partial shear connection is permitted only where the slab is in compression. The use of partial shear connection is then appropriate. longitudinal shear can be found using properties of the uncracked cross-section throughout. which may be more brittle than flexural failure.6. In BS 5950-3-131 and in earlier UK codes.2 say. the envelope of vertical shear should be used for VEd.6.7 and 6. fails either in the steel alone or in the concrete alone. but the envelope should certainly be used for more complex variable loading. Beam with Class 3 sections at supports and a Class 1 or 2 section at mid-span Clause 6.3. not with the design vertical shear forces (the action effects).6. based on the bending moments in the composite section. Rd.1 applies because non-linear or elastic theory will have been ‘applied to cross-sections’.6.1 and 6. and to calculate the longitudinal force at mid-span based on MRd at that section. applicable only when the stud material has particular properties. It does not help. that the design longitudinal shear force should be consistent with the bending resistances of the cross-sections at the ends of the critical length considered.2.2.2. Those given in clause 6. it is not clear whether clause 6. on the use of partial shear connection. with MRd less than Mpl. The Eurocodes must be applicable to a wider range of products. The concrete failure is found in tests to be influenced by both the stiffness and the strength of the concrete. not critical length.

71 . is about 5 mm greater than the ‘length after welding’. given by clause 6. Design shear resistances of 19 mm studs with h/d ≥ 4 in solid slabs This led to equations (6. An equation based on analyses of test data. denoted γV (‘V’ for shear).8 60 20 30 40 50 fck (N/mm2) 25 37 50 60 fcu (N/mm2) Fig.21). This result was based on push tests.19) are similar.20) and (6.3. 1. a term which is also in use. The ‘overall nominal height’ of a stud. a value that is supported by a subsequent calibration study15 based on beams with partial shear connection.6. where the mean number of studs per specimen was only six.16) gives a curve with a shape that approximates better both to test data and to values tabulated in BS 5950.35 (D6. Strength of studs in many beams is also increased by the presence of hogging transverse bending of the slab. and elsewhere in Section 6.12.19) should be 0. 6. In the statistical analyses done for EN 1994-1-171. are shown in Fig. In situations where the resistances from equations (6.26 to 0.70 PRd = k(πd2/4)fu(Ecm/Ea)0.26. to enable a single partial factor. Here. For any given values of fu and fck.18)–(6. It was concluded from this study72 that the coefficient in equation (6. coefficients from such analyses were modified slightly.CHAPTER 6.25.3. and where lateral restraint from the narrow test slabs was usually less stiff than in the concrete flange of a composite beam. does not apply.18) and (6.1(1) were preferred because of their clear basis and experience of their use in some countries. the figure shows which failure mode governs.6.4(fck/fu)0. to be recommended for all types of shear connection. It is assumed that the penalty for short studs.72 both of these methods were studied. For these reasons the coefficient was increased from 0.21). This value has been used in draft Eurocodes for over 20 years. Equation (D6. in which the numerical constants and partial safety factor γV have been deduced from analyses of test data. tests show that interaction occurs between the two assumed modes of failure. 6. but not on a defined model.12.20).1. but the equations of clause 6. equation (6. Design resistances of 19 mm stud connectors in solid slabs.16) gave results with slightly less scatter.29. provided that h/d ≥ 4. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES PRd (kN) 100 Normal-density concrete fu = 500 N/mm2 450 80 400 Density class 1. It can be used for this purpose for studs of other diameters. used in equations (6.

3. and more powerful welding plant is required. Design resistance of headed studs used with profiled steel sheeting in buildings The load–slip behaviour of a stud connector in a trough (of sheeting) or rib (of concrete.2(2) shear resistance.6.6.6. and the shear strength may also depend on the effective diameter of the weld between the sheeting and the flange. Studs with a diameter exceeding 20 mm are rarely used in buildings. The resistances of clause 6. where friction welding by high-speed spinning is used).67 It should not be assumed that the shear resistances of clause 6. with the note that these may vary in through-deck stud welding. This is addressed in clause 6. They are based entirely on testing and experience.3.3.1(8) requires shear connectors to have a resistance to tension that is at least 10% of the Clause 6.3.2(2) therefore permits tensile forces that are less than this to be neglected. for ribs transverse to the supporting beams.3(2).13) is more complex than in a solid slab.6.3. These occur where the axis of a stud lies in a plane parallel to that of the concrete slab. 72 . with sheeting continuous across the beam.26 which gives ‘guide values’ for the height and diameter of collars. Tension in studs Pressure under the head of a stud connector and friction on the shank normally causes the stud weld to be subjected to vertical tension before shear failure is reached.1 are applicable to studs without collars (e.0) are given. It is usually possible to find other ways of resisting the vertical tension that occurs. The collars of studs welded through profiled sheeting can be of different shape from those for studs welded direct to steel flanges. It is influenced by • • • • • the direction of the ribs relative to the span of the beam their mean breadth b0 and depth hp the diameter d and height hsc of the stud the number nr of the studs in one trough. reduction factors k (£ 1. and. a high proportion of the shear is transmitted through the collar.1 are applicable where the welding is in accordance with EN ISO 14555.g. The interactions between these parameters have been explored by testing. and their spacing whether or not a stud is central within a trough. for application to the design resistances of studs in solid slabs.3. for example. 6. Typical collars in the test specimens from which the design formulae were deduced had a diameter not less than 1. by its eccentricity and the direction of the shear.1(3) refers to ‘splitting forces in the direction of the slab thickness’. These are referred to as ‘lying studs’ in published research74 on the local reinforcement needed to prevent or control splitting. if not.4.1(2) Clause 6.6. Splitting of the slab Clause 6.3. This is why clause 6. as welding through sheeting becomes more difficult.6. There is an informative annex on this subject in EN 1994-2.1(2) on weld collars refers to EN 13918.25d and a minimum height not less than 0. that no simple design rules could be given.11 A similar problem occurs in composite L-beams with studs close to a free edge of the slab. Clause 6. 6.3.1(3) Clause 6. if studs are welded to the web of a steel T-section that projects into a concrete flange.6.1.g. Resistance of studs to higher tensile forces has been found to depend on so many variables. where d is the diameter of the shank.6.6. if any. e. both terms are used) (Fig.6. It is clear that the most significant are the ratios hsc/hp and b0/hp and. as in earlier codes.15d.73 as is required. It is known that for studs with normal weld collars. where a travelling crane is supported from the steel element of a composite beam. especially the layout of local reinforcement. about which little is known. A normal collar should be fused to the shank of the stud. nr and the eccentricity.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Weld collars Clause 6.6.5. In EN 1994-1-1.

There is no penalty for off-centre studs in either of these clauses. which might be impracticable. 6.1) There are two situations. for discontinuous un-anchored sheeting.13. the means to achieve appropriate anchorage is a matter for the National Annex.CHAPTER 6. 6.4.13. with parallel sheeting (dimensions in mm) Sheeting with ribs parallel to the supporting beams (clause 6.5. As practice varies.1 for continuous or anchored sheeting. Details of a haunch.6. or b0 for continuous sheeting Fig.1.1 and 6.6. The rules specify: • • • is the angle θ (£ 45°) the concrete side cover to the connector (≥ 50 mm) the depth of the transverse reinforcement below the underside of the head (≥ 40 mm). clause 6..6(b0 /hp)[(hsc /hp) – 1] £ 1 (6. as shown in Fig. say.4 is shown.5.4. 6. The rules of clause 6.5.13. Edge fixings provided for erection may not provide much lateral restraint.6. in Fig. The application of clause 6. A haunch that just complies with clause 6.1 where hsc may not be taken as greater than hp + 75 mm.6.4.6. or for more than one at a cross-section. The sheeting may be continuous across the beams – its side walls then provide lateral restraint to the concrete around the studs – or it may be discontinuous.6. 73 . and of clause 6. 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES 40 hsc = 145 19 = hp = 75 = q 26 60 60 26 146.4.4. Reasonable consistence is thus shown between clauses 6. Alternatively. The detailing rules for studs in unsheeted haunches. if the height of the stud were reduced to. and may be more conservative than the rules of clause 6. then provide a guide to good practice. it gives k = 0.6.4. The equation is from Grant et al.76 Here.6(146/75)[(145/75) – 1] = 1.4. 125 mm. to scale. the sheeting may be anchored to the beam. k = 0. providing a haunch with a breadth that usually exceeds the breadth b0 of a trough.09 so there is no reduction.4.6. In an unsheeted haunch it would then be necessary to provide transverse reinforcement at a lower level than in Fig.5. The reduction factor k = 0.4. should ensure good detailing.13.22) Clause 6. There would be.75 dating from 1977 because there is little recent research on ribs parallel to the beam.6.1(2) to this haunch is now considered.78.6.

max falling from 1 to 0. and hp £ 85 mm.4. there may be shear transfer from the sheeting to the beam. with through-deck welding of studs up to 20 mm in diameter.15(a)–(c): (a) failure surface above a stud that is too short (‘concrete pullout’) (b) haunch too slender.7. found that more test data were needed.17) was inconsistent and could be unsafe. Details of a haunch and positions of stud connectors.17) to 0. Clause 6. Fig. to eliminate situations where it had been found to be unsafe. b0 ≥ hp. 6. max for other situations.5hp and/or t £ 1 mm. for thinner sheeting and studs welded through hc = 75 e = 30 hsc = 95 hp = 55 = = 50 b0 = 160 Fig. with kt. essentially.2. the breadth b0 is taken as 2e (Fig.14 with typical dimensions.15(c)). A rib transverse to the beam.6. the number of studs in a rib.75 is given. reductions in resistance can be large. given in Table 6. Sheeting with ribs transverse to the supporting beams (clause 6.5 £ kt.69 and causes ‘rib punching’ failure. Where there is one stud per rib. as it has to transfer much of the shear from the base of the stud to the continuous slab above.4. max as before. A new formula by Lawson78 gave better predictions. the likely mode of failure was loss of restraint to the base of the stud due to bursting (lateral expansion) of the haunch. max (D6.2 In the preceding paragraphs. Where a single stud is placed on the weak side of the centre of a rib. kt = 0. Three modes of failure are shown in Fig. the reduction factor is usually 1. In a study of this subject61 it was concluded that equation (D6. for trapezoidal sheeting transverse to the supporting beams (dimensions in mm) 74 .6. 6. and was recommended. with the conditions: nr not to be taken as greater than 2 in computations.85 in equation (D6.77 In BS 5950-3-1. 6. No guidance is given on this complex situation.17) with kt.14. with plastic hinges in the stud (c) eccentricity on the ‘weak’ side of the centre. a review of Mottram and Johnson69 and Lawson.16 shows that: • • where hsc ≥ 2hp and t > 1 mm. It is.0 where hsc £ 1. which reduces the effective breadth of the haunch.0 mm in thickness. Later work led to the reductions in kt.78 and their application to a wider range of profiles than is used in the UK. For the Eurocode.85(b0 /hp)[(hsc/hp) – 1]/nr0.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Where sheeting is continuous across a beam and through-deck stud welding is used. which may be ignored in design. 6.31 the reduction formula from Grant et al. increases from 1 to 3.2) Most of the test data had been from sheeting exceeding 1. 6. is more highly stressed.6 as nr. It was initially decided72 to reduce the factor 0. shown in Fig.

6.5 nr = 2 1.2 ultimate strength of studs in sheeting not to be taken as greater than 450 N/mm2.15. for troughs of profiled sheeting.8 t > 1 mm hsc/hp = 2 nr = 2 t £ 1 mm 0. and the diagonal placing of pairs of studs in (e) kt t > 1 mm 1. Failure modes and placing of studs. 75 .0 2. so further limitations of scope were added: • • stud diameter not to exceed the limits given in Table 6. The alternate favourable and unfavourable placing of pairs of studs is shown in (d). ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES e (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Fig. Reduction factor kt for studs with d 20 mm and through-deck welding holes.0 b 0/ h p Fig. Research also found that the use of a reduction factor for the strength of studs in a solid slab is not appropriate where strong studs are placed in a relatively weak rib. 6.16.6 nr = 1 hsc/hp = 1.0 nr = 1 t £ 1 mm 0.0 Range common in practice 3.CHAPTER 6.

Minimum dimensions that would be appropriate for an unusually large structural member 76 .7.5. existing rules are often violated when test specimens are designed. Example 6. The overall depth is 55 mm. 6.1(1) that in equation (6. If there were no central rib.14. including zinc coating. fortunately. This is relevant because the failures sketched in Fig.48/1. kt = 1.9 mm.6.14.23) and Table 6. An adverse experience causes the relevant rule to be made more restrictive. may be weaker than two studs in line. The interaction equation of clause 6.15 are in reality three-dimensional. then two studs in line.8(3).6. For one stud in the central location (shown by dashed lines in Fig. b0 = 160 mm. as shown in Fig. The sheeting is as shown in Fig. to which the code does not refer. unless there is extensive test evidence that equation (6.14).5.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Some trapezoidal sheetings have a small rib projecting above the main top surface.4. Small stiffening ribs. 9. Detailing of the shear connection and influence of execution It is rarely possible to prove the general validity of application rules for detailing. spaced ≥ 5d apart (clause 6. It is not clear from EN 1994-1-1 how two studs per trough should then be arranged. longitudinal shears are usually low (in buildings) in relation to the width of steel top flange available for the placing of studs. but should be assumed to apply. even though most behaviour (excluding corrosion) is more influenced by ratios of dimensions than by a single value.5. Crowding studs into a rib reduces ductility69 as well as strength.8(3) is straightforward. in the hope that extensive good experience may enable existing rules to be relaxed.3(1) is based on vectorial addition of the two shear forces. Rules are often expressed in the form of limiting dimensions. 6. because they apply to so great a variety of situations. 6. and nr = 1.4. placed centrally and side by side.1(c).23) gives safe predictions of kt when hp is taken as the depth excluding the rib.5: reduction factors for transverse sheeting Clause 6.6. These studs resist horizontal shear from both the slab and the beam. from equation (9.5. 9. and only one stud per trough is required. In research.6.05 (but £ 0.6.2. There is limited evidence from tests76 that the diagonal layout of Fig. They are based partly on previous practice.4.7(4)) would be permitted. If the troughs are too narrow to permit this.2 give kt = (0. as shown in Fig. Even where 16 mm studs are used in lightweight concrete.4. 6.15(e).7.85) For two studs per trough. with an assumed thickness t = 0.48 (but £ 0. Equation (6. 6.4(3) gives the design anchorage resistance as the lesser of that given by clause 6. the bearing resistance of the sheet.6.6 and Ppb.4. Comments on that clause are given later. application of the rule given in clause 6.6. and can be arranged as shown in plan in Fig.3 Biaxial loading of shear connectors The biaxial horizontal loading referred to in clause 6. for example. It is clear from clause 6. Ductility is needed most in long spans where. Clause 9. hp is the depth including the rib. hsc = 95 mm.22).10). should have little effect on shear resistance. 6.3 occurs where stud connectors are used to provide end anchorage for composite slabs.4. so two-in-line is an acceptable layout.7 × 160/55)(95/55 – 1) = 1. the bearing resistance (typically about 14 kN) will be the lower of the two.7(4)) fall within the scope of clause 6. and resistances depend in a complex way on the arrangement of pairs of studs within a rib. Where sheeting has a small stiffening rib that prevents studs from being placed centrally within each trough. The words ‘overall depth’ are not repeated in clause 6. Rd. then two studs side-by-side spaced ≥ 4d apart (clause 6. as shown in Fig.5.41 = 1.6.15(d).6. 6.6.7) Further calculations of reduction factors are included in Example 6.

6.6. Cover to connectors Shear connectors must project significantly above profiled steel sheeting.5. The rules of clause 6.5. which is possible in concrete of class C50/60 (Fig. the bottom bars are ‘principal reinforcement’ to clause 9.5. the problem is threedimensional.8(1) for projection of 2d above ‘the top of the steel deck’. 10 mm bars are sufficient. Clause 6.3. because the objective is to prevent failure surfaces where the angle α (Fig. Tests have found that these surfaces may not be plane. What is the maximum permitted value for this spacing? The answer is quite complex. there may be no need for bottom flexural reinforcement to EN 1992-1-1. and 450 mm for ‘secondary’ reinforcement. However. The interpretation of this for profiles with a small additional top rib is not clear. most of this could be in the top of the slab. Ideally. not least because it increases the angle α. Clause 6. Let us assume that there is a single row of 19 mm studs with a design resistance.3(1) refers to clause 9.1(1) the concrete cannot pass above the connectors and below the reinforcement.2 77 .5. Clause 6.3(2) on splitting may also apply.12). A longitudinal section through a possible failure surface ABC is shown in Fig.6.22) and (6. 6.CHAPTER 6.2(5) in EN 1992-1-1.6.5. assumed to be 800 mm in Fig. 6. If 2d is measured from this rib. or 131 mm2/m for this 150 mm slab.5. The studs are at the maximum spacing allowed by clause 6. code maxima may be too large for use in a small member. 6.1 defines only the highest level for the bottom reinforcement. Resistance to separation The object of clause 6. If it is simply-supported on the beam. where the concessions on minimum cover given in clause 6. These show that 12 mm bars at 750 mm spacing are sufficient.1 for shear surfaces of type b–b or c–c.17.6. There appears to be no rule that requires closer spacing. Designers are unwise to follow detailing rules blindly.1(1) on resistance to separation is to ensure that failure surfaces in Clause 6.2 are appropriate. The bottom transverse reinforcement will then be determined by the rules of clause 6.6.6.6. and the rules of EN 1992-1-1 for cover are applied to the top of the connector. It is impracticable to specify a minimum angle α. However.5. Level of bottom transverse reinforcement (dimensions in mm) could exceed those given in the code. or to link detailing rules for reinforcement with those for connectors.6. its longitudinal location relative to the studs should also be defined.17) is small.6. where a Note recommends a minimum reinforcement ratio.23) and the rule in clause 6.2.1(3) of EN 1992-1-1. because no set of rules can be comprehensive. but it would be prudent to treat these bars as ‘secondary flexural’ bars to EN 1992-1-1.1.5(3).17.5. 450 mm.6. 91 kN per stud. 6. Similarly. these slabs are normally used only in dry environments. The angle α obviously depends on the spacing of the bottom bars. Using its maximum spacing. if the slab is continuous across the beam. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES 55 95 A 30 B a C 800 Fig. intersecting neither. because of the term (hsc /hp – 1) in equations (6. the resulting minimum thickness of a composite slab may govern its thickness. The minimum bottom reinforcement depends on whether the slab is continuous or not. For fck = 30 N/mm2 and fsk = 500 N/mm2 this gives 0.17.6. If the slab is continuous over the beam.088%.6. where a Note gives their maximum spacing as 400 mm for this example.

These can be in a horizontal plane or.6. The method of construction of composite beams and slabs (i. there is no section on execution in EN 1994-1-1. Longitudinal shear reinforcement in an L-beam 78 .g.e.5. and also the sequence of concreting.3(2) is a common mode of failure in push-test specimens with narrow slabs (e. it is usual to retain the props until the concrete has achieved a compressive strength of at least 75% of its design value. The situation can be improved by placing all the connectors near the inner edge of the steel flange.18 is less than 300 mm. 300 mm.5. verifications at removal of props should be based on a reduced compressive strength.5. Where propped construction is used. bottom transverse reinforcement will be needed. and the magnitude of deflections. a minimum time interval between successive stages of casting.6. and in serviceability checks. Local reinforcement in the slab Where shear connectors are close to a longitudinal edge of a concrete flange. It is significant. No rules are given for the effectiveness as transverse reinforcement of profiled sheeting transverse to the supporting beams. e (≥ 6 d ) a b d ≥ 0.2(4) gives a lower limit for this reduction in concrete strength. 6.6. to be the normal failure mode for composite L-beams constructed with precast slabs. in full-scale tests.5 d a b Fig. The length needed to develop the full tensile resistance of the sheeting will be known from the design procedure for the composite slab. it is recommended that U-bars be used. should be found using clause 6.2(4) concrete structures. where top reinforcement is needed.5. This is why clause 6. It was also found.5.6. Sheeting with ribs parallel to the free edge should not be assumed to resist longitudinal splitting of the slab.3(1).3(2) splitting referred to in clause 6.5.5.6.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Loading of shear connection during execution As almost all relevant provisions on execution appear in standards for either steel or Clause 6. It is always greater than the minimum edge distance of 6d. Clause 6. use of U-bars is Clause 6.5. setting. which has long been the standard width in British codes). and usually greater than 300 mm. In the unhaunched slab shown in Fig.2(4) appears here. therefore. per unit length of beam. in effect. To ensure that the reinforcement is fully anchored to the left of the line a–a. The required area of bottom transverse reinforcement. 6. affects stresses calculated by elastic theory.3(2) for slabs where the edge distance e in Fig.18.3(1) almost the only way of providing the full anchorage required by clause 6.6.18. The Clause 6.6. in a vertical plane. If this is not done.79 Detailing rules are given in clause 6. whether propped or unpropped). failure surface b–b will be critical (unless the slab is very thick) because the shear on surface a–a is low in an L-beam with an asymmetrical concrete flange. Where it exceeds the length e available. It also relates to the staged casting of a concrete flange for an unpropped composite beam.6. in verifications of resistance of cross-sections in Class 3 or 4.6. Ab. with ribs that extend to a cantilever edge of the slab.6. 6.

6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES ≥ 6d ≥ 6d (a) (b) Fig.3(3)P can be satisfied by providing ‘herring-bone’ Clause 6.3(3)P bottom reinforcement (ABC in Fig. Reinforcement at the end of a cantilever Lying studs There is also a risk of splitting where the shank of a stud (a ‘lying stud’) is parallel and close to a free surface of the slab. the force on the concrete from the connectors acts towards the nearest edge of the slab.CHAPTER 6. There is an informative annex in EN 1994-2. Lying studs are outside the scope of EN 1994-1-1.4 79 . and to ensure that the longitudinal bars provided to resist that force are anchored beyond their intersection with ABC.80 Haunches The detailing rules of clause 6. The slip capacity may be less than 6 mm. even where the steel beam alone is locally strong enough to carry the column. Clause 6. The effects of shrinkage and temperature can add further stresses37 that tend to cause splitting in region B in Fig. 6.5. 6. 6. Incompatibility between the vertical stiffnesses of the steel beam and the slab can cause local shear failure of the slab.3(2) and the provision of hoops may not be sufficient to ensure that the design shear resistance of the stud is reached. 6.20) sufficient to anchor the force from the connectors into the slab. so reinforcement in this region needs careful detailing.81 In regions of high longitudinal shear.6. Clause 6.6.4 are based on limited test evidence.4.5.20.19. Research has found74 that the ‘6d rule’ for edge distance in clause 6. so details of this type should be avoided. Reinforcement at the end of a cantilever At the end of a composite cantilever.6. in Fig.6.5. deep haunches should be used with caution because there may be little warning of failure. but are longestablished.19.6.1.5. as shown. The stud shown in Fig. The situation where a column is supported at point B is particularly critical. so the shear connection may not be ‘ductile’.5. 6. Haunches formed by profiled sheeting are considered under clause 6. The U-bars should then be in a vertical plane. 6.19(b) may be subjected to simultaneous axial tension and vertical and longitudinal shear. Examples of details susceptible to longitudinal splitting A Steel beam Studs B Slab C Transverse reinforcement not shown Fig. The height of the stud and the longitudinal bars shown are also important.20. for example.

7(5) normally applies. The rule of EN 1994-1-1 is based on behaviour observed in tests. The ratio 22 in this clause is based on the assumption that the steel flange cannot buckle towards the slab.5 for the ratio d/tf in clause 6.6. a plate girder is considered. the minimum lateral spacing of studs in ‘solid slabs’ has been reduced to 2.6. Clause 6.7(1) and 6. for stud connectors The rules of clause 6.81 and the slenderness is c/tf ε = 165/(20 × 0. from Table 5. with projecting U-bars that loop over pairs of studs.6. compared with the 4d of BS 5950-3-1. so the ratio is reduced to 15. the more liberal limit of clause 6. As an example. there is unlikely to be any need for a top flange in Class 1.6. The ratio 9 for edge distance. Clause 6. unless a wide thin flange is needed to avoid lateral buckling during construction.7(4) In clause 6.6. due to the use of profiled sheeting).5.31 though that code permits a conditional increase to 8hc.5(2).6.5.5. where the top flange has tf = 20 mm.5. this facilitates the use of large precast slabs supported on the edges of the steel flanges. Its proportions can usually be chosen such that it is in Class 2. Clause 6. it can be assumed to be in Class 1 if shear connectors are provided within 146 mm of each free edge.7(3) The limit 1. particularly those where composite slabs have studs in alternate ribs only.5d.5(3) The maximum longitudinal spacing in buildings. and an outstand c of 165 mm. Closely spaced pairs of studs must be well confined laterally. There is much experience.5(2) is not restrictive in practice. Application rules for minimum Clause 6. used in the formula 9tf(235/fy)0.6. Where the steel beam is a plate girder.5.83 of this form of construction.81) = 10.7(4).5. It has appeared in several earlier codes. Rules for resistance of studs. Some uplift then occurs at intermediate ribs.6.6.6 are intended to prevent local overstress of a steel flange near a Clause 6.5.5(2) Clause 6. Spacing at 800 mm would in some situations allow shear connection only in every third rib.6.82 and the ratio 22 for longitudinal spacing is the same as the ratio for staggered rows given in BS 5400.2 so. validated by tests. the flange is in Class 3.6.5.5(3). is more liberal than the general rule of BS 5950-3-1. It is expected that this requirement will be included in the forthcoming EN 1090 for execution of steel structures. stabilization of the steel flange. For buildings.7(2) are concerned with resistance to uplift. at a longitudinal spacing not exceeding 356 mm. and there was a requirement in ENV 1994-1-1 for anchorage. Further detailing rules for studs placed within troughs of profiled sheeting are given in Clause 6.2 of EN 1993-1-1.7.6. The maximum spacing in this example is then 243 mm. 80 . given in clause 6.5.8 clause 6.7(3) influences the design of shear connection for closed-top box girders in bridges.5.5. Detailing.6.5. Clause 6. The first two concern resistance to uplift and compaction of concrete around studs. the assumption may not be correct. minimum cover and projection of studs above bottom reinforcement usually lead to the use of studs of height greater than 3d.5. The ratio ε is 0. Clauses 6.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Maximum spacing of connectors Situations where the stability of a concrete slab is ensured by its connection to a steel beam are unlikely to occur in buildings.5. to be provided in every rib. an overall breadth of 350 mm. for a solid slab. The converse situation. The term ‘solid slabs’ should therefore be understood to exclude haunches.6.8. Where there are transverse ribs (e.6 shear connector and to avoid problems with stud welding.5. 6hc.g.5 is the same as in BS 5400: Part 5.5.6. in steel with fy = 355 N/mm2.6.5. especially in multistorey car parks.6. From clause 6. Although connection to precast slabs is outside the scope of EN 1994-1-1.6. so it rarely arises where rolled I-sections are used. but not necessarily shear connection. is of interest only where the steel compression flange is not already in Class 1.7 flange thickness are given in clause 6.5. £ 800 mm.

which.2(1) longitudinal shear stress vEd acting on a cross-section of thickness hf. It is an application of strut-and-tie modelling.2.6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES Clause 6. that if.22 in EN 1992-1-1) where ν = 0. In this respect.5. It would be prudent to locate studs on the ‘favourable’ side (see Fig.6. vL.6.1(5). the detailing problem is more acute than in the flanges of concrete T-beams. for symmetrical loading on a simply-supported span.6. Its provisions are based on a truss analogy.6.21 in EN 1992-1-1) 81 . The definitions of shear surfaces in clause 6. Instead.4).8(3) prevents the placing of studs centrally within a trough. 6.1(2)P before. The principal change from earlier codes is that the equations for the required area of transverse reinforcement have been replaced by cross-reference to EN 1992-1-1. Clause 6.6.5.CHAPTER 6.2(1) refers to clause 6.3) from those restricted to ‘buildings’ (clause 6. 6. However. This means that the distribution along the beam of resistance to in-plane shear in the slab should be the same as that assumed for the design of the shear connection.6. These bars enhance the resistance of a thin concrete slab to in-plane shear in the same way that stirrups strengthen a concrete web in vertical shear.4 of EN 1992-1-1. 6. Ed for the connectors.6. It does not mean. The method of presentation reflects the need to separate the ‘general’ provisions (clauses 6.6.1(4) requires the design longitudinal shear to be ‘consistent with’ that used for Clause 6. with a greater reduction for sheeting less than 1 mm thick. for reasons concerning detailing. to finding the shear on the plane a–a in the haunched beam shown in Fig. Longitudinal shear in concrete slabs Resistance of a concrete flange to longitudinal shear Clause 6.15(c)). for example.6 shear connection.1 to 6. by the provision of appropriate reinforcement.6. These are discussed in comments on clause 6.4. which is widely used in EN 1992-1-1. even if the vertical shear over the length considered is not constant.6.6. is less than half of the shear resisted by the connectors. it is sufficiently accurate to assume that longitudinal bending Clause 6. for a symmetrical flange.3vL.6. which.1(5) stress in the concrete flange is constant across its effective width.15(a)). 6. For example. The clause requires the area of transverse reinforcement Asf at spacing sf to satisfy Asf fyd /sf > vEd hf /cot θf and the longitudinal shear stress to satisfy vEd < νfcd sin θf cos θf (6. with fck in units of newtons per square millimetre. but a more general version of it. Transverse reinforcement is also needed to control and limit the longitudinal splitting of the slab that can be caused by local forces from individual connectors.6.6 is the avoidance of local failure of a concrete flange near the Clause 6. (The Greek (6. In applying clause 6.6.2 The subject of clause 6.6.1(2)P and the basic design method are as Clause 6. as before. is the side nearest the nearer support.6. alternate-side placing is recommended. uniform resistance to longitudinal shear flow (vL) should be provided where the connectors are uniformly spaced. This was not given as an application rule because it is difficult to ensure that the ‘favourable’ side would be correctly chosen on site. and zero outside it.6. for example.6.6(1 – fck /250). This clause does not refer to layouts that require two studs per trough.6.6.6.6. Sheeting profiles with troughs wide enough to have off-centre stiffening ribs are more suitable for composite slabs than those with central ribs. research has found77 that the mean strength of pairs of studs placed on the two sides of a trough is about 5% less than if both were central.15. Rd = 1. with alternate studs on the ‘unfavourable’ side (see Fig.1(4) the design of the shear connectors. in which the angle between members of the truss can be chosen by the designer.6. which is written for a design Clause 6.6.6. the transverse reinforcement must provide the same degree of over-strength. The clause is relevant.6.6.6.8(3) relates to a common situation: where a small stiffening rib in sheeting Clause 6. where the shear from the web is applied more uniformly.

22) above.40νf cd If this inequality is satisfied. Example 6. vEd < 0. Ft = 0. and with edges that pass through the mid-points of AB.5° so the initial choice for θf is 26. The shear force per transverse bar is Fv = vEd hf sf acting on side AB of the rectangle shown.21 shows a plan of an area ABCD of a concrete flange.2. which is used for shear stress. For a flange in compression.19). However. then the value chosen for θf is satisfactory.4(4) of EN 1992-1-1 are 45° ≥ θf ≥ 26.19) For minimum area of transverse reinforcement. the limits to θf given in clause 6. θf should be chosen to be as small as possible.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 letter ν used here in EN 1992-1-1 should not be confused with the Roman letter v. so that the width of the strut is sf sin θf. Then.20) (D6.21) Ft Fc D Fv sf C sf sin qf Fig. assumed to be in longitudinal compression.18) (D6. etc.5°.) The angle θf between the diagonal strut and the axis of the beam is chosen (within limits) by the designer. Truss analogy for in-plane shear in a concrete flange 82 . 6.5Fv From equation (6.21.6: transverse reinforcement for longitudinal shear Figure 6. with shear stress vEd and transverse reinforcing bars of area Asf at spacing sf. from equation (D6. For equilibrium at A. the force in the strut is Fc = Fv sec θf For equilibrium at C. as shown. the force in the transverse bar BC is Ft = Fc sin θf = Fv tan θf (D6. It is transferred to side CD by a concrete strut AC at angle θf to AB.22) Fv A qf B (D6.. The use of the method is illustrated in the following example.48νf cd To satisfy equation (6. let us assume that the concrete strut is over-stressed. because vEd = 0.

Longitudinal shear in beams with composite slabs (clause 6. The concrete in the mid-span region of the composite slab Clause 6.5.4(2). which spans towards the right-hand side of the diagram.19).6. or parallel to it.15 are different from the type a–a surface because they resist almost the whole longitudinal shear. Minimum transverse reinforcement Clause 6. 6.6.6.3 Clause 6. Ft and Fc. the designer may be unable to use transverse sheeting as reinforcement for shear in the plane of the slab.4(5)).4(1) is independent of the direction of the sheeting.6. However. The relevant reinforcement intersects them twice.6.6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES sin θf cos θf ≥ 0.4(5) 83 .This is applied in Example 6.6.6.6. not (typically) about half of it. and whether these ends are attached to the steel beam by through-deck welding of stud connectors.4(4)) and is useful where through-deck welding is used (clause 6. If these decisions are made subsequently by the contractor.6.3 on this subject is discussed under clause 6.6. or combine them in an appropriate way.4(2) Clause 6. 6. From equation (D6. c–c.CHAPTER 6.6. so the stress in the concrete is reduced.6.6.20). For a surface of type c–c in a beam with the steel section near one edge of the concrete flange. the change in θf.6.48 whence θf ≥ 37° The designer increases θf to 40°. but for θf < 45° (the maximum value permitted). the increase in the width sf sin θf is greater. as shown by the factor 2 in the table in Fig.22. which satisfies expression (D6.6.6.6.15.6. EN 1994-1-1 does not state whether both procedures can be used at once.6.1 on resistance to separation. Sheets attached only by fixings used for erection and those with their span parallel to that of the beam are ineffective as transverse reinforcement.6. increases the required area of transverse reinforcement by 68%.21 are proportional to the forces Fv. The contribution made by sheeting to resistance in longitudinal shear depends not only on its direction but also on whether the designer can determine the position of the ends of individual sheets.21).16. which shows an exploded view of the base of a stud welded to a steel flange through a layer of sheeting. Shear planes Clause 6. Its contribution to shear resistance is substantial where it is continuous across the beam (clause 6. 6. one can either use the more adverse of the two sets of rules. In clause 6. the ‘type b–b’ shear surface is as shown in Fig. For given Fv and sf.6. Where they intersect a beam at some other angle. it is clearly wrong to assume that half of the shear crosses half of the surface c–c.4) Design rules are given for sheeting with troughs that run either transverse to the span of the steel beam. Those of types b–b. Ft = Fv tan 40° = 0.6. made to limit the compressive stress in the concrete strut AC.6. so the method is not unsafe. The rule for thickness of concrete in clause 6. in this situation the shear on the adjacent plane of type a–a will govern. The lengths of the sides of the triangle ABC in Fig.4 Clause 6. 6. Through-deck welding of studs is also used to enhance the resistance of a composite slab to longitudinal shear. increasing θf increases Fc. 6.6.6. 6.1(3) refers to ‘shear surfaces’. in which the labelling of the shear surfaces differs from that in Fig. The question is discussed with reference to Fig.4(4) Clause 6.15.84Fv From equation (D6.4(1) Clause 6.6. and d–d in Fig.7.

84 .4(3) for the calculation of resistance Ppb. The three supports for each beam may be treated as point supports.7. the available resistance Ppb. in whatever ratio may be required. The floor finish adds These are applied to the composite structure. and that the whole 24 m length of concrete flange is cast before significant composite action is developed in any of this length. the floor finish will be treated in global analyses as an imposed load. Example 6. This analysis shows that if the two procedures are used for the same stud. Rd is not shear failure of the stud but bearing failure of the sheeting. fully continuous over two equal spans of 12.20 kN/m2 γF = 1.22. which enables it to anchor a tension A in the sheeting. is qk = 7. This particular concept is unlikely to be used in practice. The floor consists of a composite slab of overall thickness 130 mm. The model in clause 9. It is clear from Fig. The force B is due to the action of the steel top flange and the sheeting as equivalent transverse reinforcement.0 m. It will be assumed initially that unpropped construction is used. For simplicity. However. which depends on the distance from the stud to the edge of the sheet. spanning between the beams. because A exists above the sheeting and B below it. the checking of the beam for serviceability limit states. and the influence of semi-continuous beam-to-column connections are the subjects of subsequent worked examples in this and later chapters of this guide. it illustrates the use of many of the provisions of EN 1994-1-1. 6. The design will be found to be governed by resistance at the internal support. A through-deck welded stud acting as an end anchorage for a composite slab. and is chosen for that reason. and also providing continuity for transverse reinforcement applies the force A to the upper part of the stud. which is conservative. and only a small part of the bending resistance at mid-span can be used. including partitions.35 where γF is a partial safety factor.50 m spacing.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 A Stud A A A+B B Flange Sheeting B B Fig.7: two-span beam with a composite slab – ultimate limit state A floor structure for a department store consists of composite beams of uniform cross-section at 2. but they are additive for the sheeting.22 that forces A and B are not additive for the stud. Rd should be split between them. 6. The design service life is 50 years.50 γF = 1. The design of the composite slab. subjected to vertical loading only. Loadings and materials The characteristic imposed load.0 kN/m2 gk1 = 1. A design is required for an internal beam. providing lateral and vertical restraint.

5 Ultimate (minimum) 6. (c) Elevation of beam Table 6.35.02 0.6 190 (a) 379 E (b) 25 75 100 D A 12 000 (c) B D 12 000 C Fig.81 = 2.01 kN/m2 with a partial safety factor γF = 1. Table 6.0.23.76 kN/m. 6. on steel beam Floor finishes Imposed load Total.76 5.105 × 1. (b) Section E–E.4 21 14.23.25 27.5 m.1 in clause 11.50 18. Table 11.78 1.2.7 Preliminary studies have led to the choice of lightweight-aggregate concrete.78 1. with γM = 1.35. with γF = 1.105 m. so 85 . For an oven-dry density not exceeding 1800 kg/m3.42 Ultimate (maximum) 6.2 gives the loadings for a beam spacing of 2.7 24. At this stage. The mean thickness of the floor is 0.02 7. with the dimensions shown in Fig.62 0 1. the shape for the profiled sheeting is assumed to be as in Fig. Elevation and cross-sections of the two-span beam (dimensions in mm).80 1. Its weight is gk3 = 0.0 50 12∆ at 200 42 88 IPE 450 450 9.62 26. for vertical shear 5.95 × 9.3 of EN 1992-1-1 gives the design density of this reinforced concrete as 1950 kg/m3.78 1.80 1. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES E beff = 1600 12∆ at 125 30 80 1. giving a characteristic load gk2 = 0.9 35.8 and strength class LC25/28.20 17. for composite beam Total. of density class 1.62 9.23. (a) Section D–D.CHAPTER 6. Properties of materials Structural steel: grade S355. The chosen steel section is IPE 450.02 7. 6. which is now assumed to include the sheeting. Loadings per unit length of beam Load (kN/m) Characteristic Composite slab Steel beam Total. 6.

5. with ultimate tensile strength fu = 500 N/mm2 and γV = 1.1 From informative Annex C. Properties of the IPE 450 cross-section From section tables: Area: Second moments of area: Torsional moment of area: Radii of gyration: Section moduli: Plastic section modulus: Aa = 9880 mm2 10–6Iay = 337. η1 = 0. Shear connectors: it is assumed that 19 mm studs will be used. the 12 mm longitudinal bars are placed above the transverse bars.176 mm3 (D6. and because it gives numbers of convenient size. a. so the shortterm modular ratio is n0 = 210/20.25. fsd = 435 N/mm2 Ductility: to be in Class B or C.8 mm4 10–6Way = 1.891 × 2. as shown in Fig.81 Concrete: fck = 25 N/mm2.24) From clause 11.50 mm3 10–6Wpl.702 mm3 10–6Waz = 0. plus a tolerance of between 5 and 10 mm that depends on the quality assurance system. and is here taken as 9 mm. welded through the steel sheeting.659 mm4 iy = 185 mm iz = 41. y = 1. so the mean tensile strength is flctm = 0.1 of EN 1992-1-1.1) is then 15 mm for a service life of 50 years.4.23.2 N/mm2 (D6. 0.5. 86 . 6.891. from clause 5.25) The factor 10–6 is used to enable moments in kN m to be related to stresses in N/mm2 without further adjustment.2 of EN 1992-1-1. From clause 4. the ‘nominal total final free shrinkage strain’ is εcs = –500 × 10–6 Reinforcement: fsk = 500 N/mm2. Elcm = 31 × (18/22) = 20.4 + 0. γC = 1.3. At the internal support.7 = 10.22) (D6.15.85fcd = 14.1(5).32 N/mm2 2 2 (D6.6 = 2.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 fy = fyd = 355 N/mm2 and ε = ÷(235/255) = 0.2 of EN 1992-1-1.3.4 mm4 10–6Iat = 0. and a ‘dry’ environment. The minimum cover (clause 4.6 × 1800/2200 = 0. the exposure class is XC1.2 mm ix = 190 mm fillet radius: r = 21 mm 10–6Iaz = 16. γS = 1. with a top cover of 24 mm. Durability The floor finish is assumed to be such that the top of the slab is exposed to ‘low air humidity’.7 kN/mm .23) From clause 11.

5. beff = 0.625 m width.4 × 2 × 0.1 = 10.75 This exceeds c/2.2 of EN 1993-1-1. from Table 5.025 × 10. βi = 0. the web is Class 2. Its Table 5. Rd.2 defines the depth of web.05 = 1. so at the internal support.2 m.25 × 24 = 6 m. At mid-span. Here.435 = 639 kN Assuming a Class 2 section.1 + 2 × 6/8 = 1. c = 379 mm. for Class 2. The force in these bars at yield is Fs. of which the depth in compression is 379/2 + 96 = 285 mm whence α = 285/379 = 0. Assume b0 = 0.1.2. y = 1470 × 0. giving 13 bars within a 1. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES Effective widths of concrete flange In Fig. then b1 = b2 = 2.4.5.5.4/2 = 1. 2 = 0. see Example 7.2 = 1.1 of clause 5.1 + 2 × 10.762 × 1.5/2 – 0. beff = 0.2 m. At the internal support.1 + 2 × 0. the stress distribution for Mpl. It is (inconveniently) necessary to assume a value for this before the checks that govern it can be made. clause 5. Le for beff. so the reinforcement is assumed to be 12 mm bars at 125 mm.5 m) so bei = 2.20 = 0.55 + 0.2.2/8 = 2. c/t £ 456 ε/(13α – 1) = 42.60 m At an end support. L1 = L2 = 12.6 m by 80 mm. bei = 1.2.3 mm Hence 87 . Large-diameter bars may not give sufficient control of crack widths.20 m.4 = 40. the depth of steel web that changes from tension to compression is 639/(9.5.1 m.1(1)P refers to clause 5. so As /Ac = ρs = 0. so As = 1470 mm2 The effective area of concrete slab is 1. Le for beff. a. so from Table 5.355) = 96 mm For classification. Starting from the stress distribution for Mpl.20 m At mid-span. c = (190 – 9.65 m (but £ 2.762 beff = 0. it is obviously in Class 1 or 2.1.2 The actual c/t = 381/9.83 m Classification of composite cross-section The class of the web is quite sensitive to the area of longitudinal reinforcement in the slab at the internal support. c. as that bounded by the root radii. For the compression flange.CHAPTER 6. Rd is needed.5.0 m.0113 The requirement of clause 5.2/1.1(5) for minimum ρs will be checked during the design for crack-width control.4)/23 – 21 = 69.

e. The member is Class 2 at the internal support and Class 1 or 2 at mid-span. its force at yield increases to 639 × 1.24.15 = 735 kN.2. because the condition of clause 6.3/(14. 6.6 × 0.2. Rk = 802 kN m (hogging) All of these resistances may need to be reduced to allow for lateral–torsional buckling or vertical shear. the tensile force is 1600 2500 639 kN 100 277 225 96 639 kN 604 kN m 3507 kN 225 5 667 kN 222 (D6.2) At the internal support. If it is all stressed to 0.2. It follows from clause 5.355 = 604 kN m Mpl. It is notable that if the steel top flange were in Class 3.2.3(1)) is limited to sagging regions. the depth of web to change stress is 110 mm. sections in Class 1 or 2).5 × 80 = 2840 kN If the whole steel section is at yield. Mpl. Rd = 604 + 639 × 0.0. This would be impracticable with the sheeting profile shown in Fig. Plastic resistance to bending (clause 6.5 m wide and 80 mm thick.6 × 0. The use of partial shear connection (clause 6.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 c/tε = 69. by the method used for Mpl. and.5(2) is that the spacing of shear connectors does not exceed 15tfε.81) = 5. With γS = 1 for the reinforcement. reinforcement in compression is ignored.81 = 177 mm. and the available area of concrete is 2. its connection to the slab would not enable it to be upgraded. The design plastic resistance to hogging bending is that of the steel section plus the effect of the reinforcing bars. 6.702 × 0. a. but rarely in multi-span bridges. Rd.6.85fcd.86 The limit for a Class 1 flange is 9. This can usually be achieved in buildings.2.5.1(1)P that rigid-plastic theory may be used for resistances to bending at all cross-sections of the beam. 6. which is for ‘beams in which plastic theory is used for resistance of cross-sections’ (i. shown in Fig. which is 15 × 14.277 = 781 kN m (hogging and sagging) (hogging) The characteristic plastic resistance is also needed.2. Design is thus much simpler when there are no beams with cross-sections in Class 3 or 4.4(2) that for global analyses for ultimate limit states.1.24(a): Mpl.4. the compressive force is Fc = 14. it has been found (above) that a 96 mm depth of the upper half of the web is in compression.23.1.26) 2840 kN 90 93 (a) (b) Fig.1. Rd = 1. and from clause 6.2 × 2. Plastic moments of resistance in (a) hogging and (b) sagging bending (dimensions in mm) 88 .6. For sagging bending at mid-span. in accordance with clause 6. so the bottom flange is Class 1. (provided that lateral–torsional buckling does not govern) the whole of the loading may be assumed to act on the composite member.

5 84. In ‘steel’ units. and the use of ‘cracked’ and ‘uncracked’ sections. Rd = 2840 × 0.25.3.2 10. Its properties are: Area: A = 9880 + 158 × 80 = 9880 + 12640 = 22 520 mm2 Height of neutral axis above centre of steel section: zna = 12 640 × 315/22 520 = 177 mm 89 . 6. cracked. uncracked (3) Support.355 × 190) = 5.CHAPTER 6.24(b). uncracked (4) Mid-span. From clause 5. uncracked (6) Mid-span.2.6/10.2.222 = 1043 kN m (sagging) (D6. Plastic resistance to vertical shear Clause 6.6 = 5082 mm2 and gives the design plastic shear resistance as Vpl.7 94.6 1. below the limit of 48.2 refers to clause 6.27) This resistance will be reduced later by the use of partial shear connection.5 Fa = 9880 × 0.3 for use in Chapter 7.7 beff (m) 1. is now given. creep may be allowed for by using a modular ratio n = 2n0 = 20.5 Neutral axis (mm) 42 177 123 210 158 130 10-6Iy (mm4) 467 894 718 996 828 741 10-6Wc. with n = 10.7. the thickness of flange to change from tension to compression is tf. 6. and Mpl.0 mm The longitudinal forces are then as shown in Fig. as explained later. uncracked Modular ratio – 10. Rd = Av( fy/÷3)/γM0 = 5082 × 0. with the plastic neutral axis in the steel top flange. It is convenient to calculate all these properties at the outset (Table 6.355/÷3 = 1042 kN For shear buckling.6 1. clause 6.6 of EN 1993-1-1.2.158 m. c = (3507 – 2840)/(2 × 0. The calculation for the uncracked properties at the internal support. No buckling check is required. The error is conservative (except for the shear connection) and usually very small. Results for n = n0 are included in Table 6.6 + 51.2 for both short-term and long-term loadings.315 + 667 × 0. top (mm3) – 50. as an example. is 45.5 69.6 2.2.1 20.4 × 14. Elastic section properties of the composite cross-section Cross-section (1) Support.5 2.1 = 0.1 20. Flexural properties of elastic cross-sections Several sets of elastic properties are needed.6.2. it helps to use the more accurate modular ratio 28. based on the depth between the flanges.2(11). Effects of shrinkage are unusually high in this example. Here.4. For these. uncracked (5) Mid-span.2. reinforced (2) Support. because of changes of modular ratio and effective width. even where the steel beam is of uniform section.3).7 62.3 refers to Section 5 of EN 1993-1-5. slab reinforcement is ignored in the ‘uncracked’ analyses. the width of the slab is 1.355 = 3507 kN Assuming full shear connection.1.5 2. so the composite section is as shown in Fig. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES Table 6. This defines the shear area of a rolled I-section as Av = A – 2btf + (tw + 2r)tf = 9880 – 380 × 14. because hw/t for the steel web.2 28.

Most of the permanent load is applied to the steel beam. so global analysis is done next.1.7 mm3 Similar calculations were done for the other elastic section properties required. clause 5.1. This ignored shrinkage. Wherever possible.4. Mb. For global analysis.3(3) requires the use of cracked section properties over a length of 1. Clause 5. For this beam. and the long-term effects of shrinkage are so significant that the case t Æ • is more critical than t ª 0. The proposed use of n = 20.3(3). Bending moment at the internal support governs. top of slab.1 (dimensions in mm) 90 . Cracking almost always occurs in continuous beams.3.4. Where alternatives are permitted. but resistances are based on the whole of the load acting on the composite beam.4.2(4) on imperfections is satisfied. both types of limit state should be considered before making a choice. The simplest method of allowing for cracking.4 + 9880 × 0. In this example. because lateral–torsional buckling is the only type of instability that need be considered. because resistances are based on this width and reinforcement outside it may be quite light. 6. which further increases the tension.25. using the longer method of clause 5. the rules for global analysis in Section 5 apply to both ultimate and serviceability limit states. and its resistance formulae take account of imperfections.2.2. Uncracked composite section at internal support. the tensile stress in the concrete at the internal support exceeded three times its tensile strength. found that for the ultimate imposed loading on both spans. Creep increases this. Global analysis The resistance to lateral–torsional buckling of the beam near the internal support.1.2. but here beff for the cracked region is taken as 1.2.1772 + 12 640 × 0.1(1)). depends on the bending-moment distribution.1382 = 894 mm4 Flexural stiffness: 10–6Ea Iy = 210 × 894 = 187 700 kN mm2 Section modulus.6 m.4.2). which does not creep. is applicable here. calculations for uncracked sections.2(4) permits the use of the mid-span effective width for the whole span. The results are given in Table 6. with n0 = 10. 158 12 640 90 138 225 177 9880 Neutral axis Fig. in concrete units: 10–6Wc. and will be used.1/178 = 50.3(2). in clause 5.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Second moment of area: 10–6Iy = 337.2. clause 5. Rd.4. there is no need to take account of the flexibility of joints (clause 5. For this beam. top = 894 × 10.2 for the uncracked region merits discussion.8 m each side of the internal support. First-order elastic theory may be used (clauses 5.2(1) and 5.

6. It is MEd.2 10–6Iy (mm4) 996 828 996 828 λ 2.42 9.1 20. through cracking.13 1.77 2.4. For distributed loading w per unit length. B I lI 0. so some creep of the composite member is likely. this equals the slab thickness. calculation of bending moments algebraically is straightforward. The modular ratio for shrinkage effects is n = n0(1 + ψLϕt) = 10. 6.15L Table 6. B = (wL2/4)(0.2. is MEd. 6. For normally hardening cement and ‘inside conditions’. For a slab with both surfaces exposed.55 for shrinkage. 6.0.6qk is 40% of 1. For lightweight concrete. Creep coefficients for normal-weight concrete are given in Fig.4.15L 0.CHAPTER 6.4. for which a more accurate value is determined. Hence. as shown.2. B (kN m) 133 142 370 394 For the quasi-permanent combination.2 will be used for all action effects except shrinkage.2. In this example. an equation for the elastic bending moment MEd at B is derived in the first edition of Johnson and Buckby37 (p.25 n 10.35) = 28. the notional size of the cross-section.1(1 + 0. the design bending moment for the internal support. and ratio of flexural stiffnesses λ.3(1) of EN 1992-1-1 gives a correction factor. 3. Elastic propped cantilever with change of section at 0. the age of loading can be assumed to be 1 day.772λ + 1. Modular ratio for the effects of shrinkage From clause 5. so h0 = 210 mm.55 × 3.42 26. clause 11.26. When both spans are fully loaded. with n = 20. excluding shrinkage effects. 3. the beam is of non-uniform section. the coefficient ψ2 for variable load in a department store is given in clause A1.4.13 1.5qk.890)/(0.77 MEd. The mean thickness (see Fig.23) is 105 mm. t0) as 5. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES B w C MEd. but the slab here has one sealed surface.25 26. Design ultimate bending moments at the fixed end of the propped cantilever Loading Permanent Permanent Variable Variable w (kN/m) 9. only a propped cantilever need be considered (Fig.2(4). and is 0.2(2) takes account of the shape of the stress–time curve for the effect considered.2 10. 375).2. as follows.2(1) of EN 1990 as 0. and 0.3.35.228) The results are given in Table 6. Fig.1 of EN 1992-1-1 in terms of h0.7 Bending moments Although. which in this case is (18/22)2. because the two spans are equal. B = 394 + 142 = 536 kN m The vertical shear at the internal support is 91 .85L Fig.1 of EN 1992-1-1 gives the creep coefficient ϕ(•. giving ϕ = 3.26). and h0 is twice its thickness. The creep multiplier ψL in clause 5. n = 2n0 = 20.1 20.110λ + 0.

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

F

zsh Fzsh F

d

R

0.85L (a) (b)

0.30L

0.85L

Msh, B

P/2

d

P/2

d

P/2

0.15L (c)

0.85L (d)

P

Fig. 6.27. Secondary effects of shrinkage

VEd, B = (9.42 + 26.25) × 6 + 536/12 = 259 kN The plastic shear resistance of the IPE 450 section, Vpl, Rd, was found earlier to be 1042 kN. From clause 6.2.2.4(1), bending resistance is not reduced by shear until VEd > Vpl, Rd /2, so there is no reduction here. Redistribution of moments is not used because clause 5.4.4(4) does not permit it if allowance for lateral–torsional buckling is required. Secondary effects of shrinkage Shrinkage of the slab causes sagging curvature and shortening of the composite member, the ‘primary effects’. In a continuous beam, the curvature causes bending moments and shear forces, the ‘secondary effects’. In regions assumed to be cracked, both the curvature and the stresses from the primary effects are neglected (clauses 5.4.2.2(8) and 6.2.1.5(5)). The important secondary effect in this beam, a hogging bending moment at the internal support, is now calculated. Shrinkage is a permanent action, and so is not reduced by a combination factor ψ0. The slab is imagined to be separated from the steel beam, Fig. 6.27(a). Its area Ac is that of the concrete above the sheeting. It shrinks. A force is applied to extend it to its original length. It is F = Ac(Ea/n)|εcs| (D6.28) This acts at the centre of the slab, at a distance zsh above the centroid of the composite section. The parts of the beam are reconnected. To restore equilibrium, an opposite force F and a sagging moment Fzsh are applied to the composite section. The radius of curvature of the uncracked part of the beam is R = EaλIy /Fzsh If the centre support is removed, the deflection δ at that point is δ = (0.85L)2/2R from the geometry of the circle (Fig. 6.27(b)). (D6.30) (D6.29)

92

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

It remains to calculate the force P, applied at that point, to reduce the deflection to zero, so that the centre support can be replaced (Fig. 6.27(d)). The secondary hogging bending moment at B is MEd, sh, B = PL/2 (D6.31) and the vertical shear is P/2. Using slope and deflection coefficients for a cantilever (Fig. 6.27(c)), P can be found from the result δ = (P/2)L3(0.13λ + 0.20)/(EaIyλ) The calculation is as follows: Ac = 2.5 × 0.08 = 0.20 m2 Ea = 210 kN/mm2, n = 28.7 and εcs = –500 × 10 –6; so, from equation (D6.28), F = 732 kN. From Table 6.3, λIy = 741 × 106 mm4 zsh = 225 – 40 = 185 mm so, from equation (D6.29), R = 1149 m, and, from equation (D6.30) with L = 12 m, δ = 45.3 mm. From Table 6.3, Iy = 467 × 106 mm4 so λ = 741/467 = 1.587 so, from equation (D6.32), P/2 = 10.0 kN and MEd, sh, B = 10 × 12 = 120 kN m Should shrinkage be neglected at ultimate load? This unusually high value, 120 kN m, results from the use of a material with high shrinkage and a continuous beam with two equal spans. It increases the ultimate design bending moment at B by 22%. Clause 5.4.2.2(7) permits this to be neglected if resistance is not influenced by lateral–torsional buckling. The reasoning is that as the bending resistances of the sections are determined by plastic theory, the ultimate condition approaches a collapse mechanism, in which elastic deformations (e.g. those from shrinkage) become negligible in comparison with total deformations. However, if the resistance at the internal support is governed by lateral–torsional buckling, and if the buckling moment (to be calculated) is far below the plastic moment, the inelastic behaviour may not be sufficient for the shrinkage effects to become negligible, before failure occurs at the internal support. Hence, the secondary shrinkage moment is not neglected at this stage, even though this beam happens to have a large reserve of strength at mid-span, and would not fail until the support section was far into the post-buckling phase. (D6.32)

Resistance to lateral–torsional buckling The top flange of the steel beam is restrained in both position and direction by the composite slab. Lateral buckling of the bottom flange near the internal support is accompanied by bending of the web, so the problem here is distortional lateral buckling. The provisions in EN 1994-1-1 headed ‘lateral–torsional buckling’ (clause 6.4), are in fact for distortional buckling. Clause 6.4.1(3) permits, as an alternative, use of the provisions in EN 1993-1-1 for steel beams. The method of clause 6.4.2 is used here. The

93

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

detailed comments on it, both in the main text and in Appendix A, should be referred to as required. The method requires the calculation of the elastic critical buckling moment at the internal support, Mcr, for which information is given in tables in ENV 1994-1-1 (reproduced as graphs in Appendix A (Figs A.3 and A.4)). The simple method of clause 6.4.3 is not available, as the loading does not conform to paragraph (b) of clause 6.4.3(1). Buckling near an internal support is often most critical in a span with minimum load that is adjacent to a fully loaded span. In this beam it was found that although the buckling moment Mb, Rd is increased when both spans are loaded (because the length of bottom flange in compression is reduced), the increase in the applied moment MEd is greater, so the both-spans-loaded case is more critical. This case is now considered, with n = 20.2 and all load assumed to act on the composite member. From Table 6.4, the bending moments in the beam are as shown in Fig. 6.28. Shrinkage is considered separately. The ‘simply-supported’ moment M0 is 35.7 × 122/8 = 643 kN m, so, from Fig. A.3 for C4 (see Appendix A), ψ = MB/M0 = 536/643 = 0.834 and C4 = 28.3 (D6.11) The elastic critical buckling moment was given earlier as Mcr = (kcC4/L)[(GaIat + ksL2/π2)EaIafz]1/2 where kc is a property of the composite section, given in Section 6.4.2, Ga is the shear modulus for steel, Ga = Ea/[2(1 + υa)] = 80.8 kN/mm2 Iat is the torsional moment of area of the steel section, Iat = 0.659 × 106 mm4 ks is defined in clause 6.4.2(6), and Iafz is the minor-axis second moment of area of the steel bottom flange, 10–6Iafz = 1.903 × 14.6/12 = 8.345 mm4 The stiffness ks is now found. It depends on the lesser of the ‘cracked’ flexural stiffnesses of the composite slab at a support and at mid-span, (EI)2. The value at the support governs. An approximation for this, derived in Appendix A, is (EI)2 = Ea[As Ae z2/(As + Ae) + Ae hp2/12] where Ae is the equivalent transformed area per unit width of concrete in compression, Ae = b0 hp /nbs

Full load on both spans Variable load on span AB only 339 536

0

A D B

C

403 494 5.26 m 7.25 m 4.75 m

Fig. 6.28. Bending-moment distributions for ultimate limit state, excluding shrinkage

94

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

ds As z

hp/2 b0

bp

Fig. 6.29. Cross-section of the composite slab

where b0 is the mean width of the troughs, bs is the spacing of the troughs, hp is the depth of the sheeting, As is the area of top reinforcement per unit width of slab and z is the ‘lever arm’, as shown in Fig. A.1 of Appendix A. Calculation of (EI)2 for the composite slab, and ks It is assumed that the transverse reinforcement above the steel beam will be below the longitudinal bars and not less than 12 mm bars at 200 mm, giving As = 565 mm2/m and ds = 42 mm, whence z = 63 mm (Fig. 6.29). Assuming that buckling is caused by a short-term overload, n is taken as 10.1. From Fig. 6.23, b0/bs = 0.5; hp = 50 mm; so Ae = 2475 mm2/m. Hence, (EI)2 = 210[0.565 × 2.475 × 632/3040 + 2.475 × 502/12 000] = 491 kN m2/m From clause 6.4.2(6), for unit width of a slab continuous across the steel beams at spacing a, and assuming that the conditions for using α = 4 apply, k1 = 4(EI)2/a = 4 × 491/2.5 = 786 kN m/rad per metre width, and k2 = Eatw3/[4hs(1 – υa2)] where hs is the distance between the centres of the flanges of the IPE 450 section, 435 mm. Thus, k2 = 210 × 9.43/(4 × 435 × 0.91) = 110 kN/rad and ks = k1k2/(k1 + k2) = 786 × 110/896 = 96.4 kN/rad Calculation of kc For a doubly symmetrical steel section, from equations (D6.12) and (D6.13), kc = (hs Iy /Iay)/[(hs2/4 + ix2)/e + hs] with e = AIay /[Aazc(A – Aa)] In these expressions, the symbols are properties of the steel section, given earlier, except that A is the area of the cracked composite section, A = Aa + As = 11 350 mm2

95

) The buckling resistance is Mb. so from Table 6. are used here. and is reduced by creep. It is not clear whether it applies if a National Annex specifies a lower value. The recommended values.15 × 28.15 Calculation of Mcr and Mb. ‘slab’ means the 130 mm-deep composite slab.3 of EN 1993-1-1 should be used in calculating χLT. Here.16. 6.1 is assumed.3.67 kN/m. Rd From equation (D6. where buckling curve c is specified for this IPE section.3. 0 = 0.2. so zc = 225 + 130/2 = 290 mm Hence. clause 6. calculated earlier. but that curve is inconsistent with the equation for χLT in clause 6. The result is quite sensitive to the values specified for λLT. This is understood to mean that the value of αLT given for curve c in Table 6. the end reaction is 96 .75 respectively.4. Clause 6. so n = 10. 6. 0.3 of EN 1993-1-1.153Mcr.4 of EN 1993-1-1. The rule appears to be linked to the use of λLT.2 of EN 1993-1-1 includes a rule that if MEd/Mcr £ 0. 0 and β.659 + 96. Its value depends on the parameters λLT.3/12)[(80. The provision of bracing to the bottom flange is considered at the end of this example. It is the stiffness of the composite slab in the transverse direction that prevents rotation of the steel top flange.2(1) refers to clause 6. The slenderness is λLT = ÷(MRk/Mcr) = (802/4340)1/2 = 0.983 × 781 = 767 kN m This is well above the design ultimate moment with shrinkage included. 0 ) + βλLT 2 ] = 0. not the 80 mm depth of concrete that contributes to the composite section.11) for Mcr: Mcr = (1. MEd = 656 kN m.8 × 0. Rd = χLTMpl.4 ×122/π2) × 210 × 8. the relative slenderness depends also on the characteristic resistance moment. B = 133 + 370/2 = 318 kN m For the span with loading 35.3. The calculation is ΦLT = 0.983 [ΦLT + ÷ (ΦLT 2 . Design for sagging bending The maximum sagging bending occurs in a span when the other span carries minimum load. Removal of variable load from one span halves the bending moment it causes at the internal support.3.88. 0 and β.4 the bending moment at the internal support is MEd.2. lateral–torsional buckling effects may be ignored.2(4).5[1 + αLT (λLT .λLT.577 χLT = 1 = 0. This could be taken to mean the curve c plotted in Fig. This applies here: MEd = 0. e = 11 350 × 337 × 106/(9880 × 290 × 1470) = 909 mm and kc = (435 × 467/337)/[(2182 + 1902)/909 + 435] = 1.4 gives the much lower result χLT = 0. which can be given in a National Annex.4. Rd = 0.2.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 and zc is the distance between the centroid of the steel beam and mid-depth of the slab.4 and 0.345]1/2 = 4340 kN m From clause 6.βλLT 2 )] (The use of Fig.430 For the reduction factor χLT for a rolled section.4.

Design of the shear connection The degree of shear connection used here enables the studs to be treated as ‘ductile’. the minimum degree of shear connection is η = n/nf = 1 – (0.56nf.0 mm) and the number of studs per trough. MEd is even below Mpl. the resistances are therefore PRd.7 × 100/50 × (95/50 – 1) = 1. the compressive force in the slab is then not less than 2840 × 0.6. From equation (6. The standard height of 95 mm. From Fig.75 – 0.23).6. For nr = 1: For nr = 2: kt = 0.2 = 306 kN/m The number of single studs required is 97 .25 = 51. Rd = 946 kN m which is almost twice the resistance required. a.56 Clause 6. subject to some conditions.2(1) the span length in sagging bending may be taken as 0.26 m from the support.2 m.56 = 1590 kN.85 × 60.2(3) permits a lower value.1 shows that its deflection would probably be excessive. Recalculation of Mpl. The design shear resistance per stud is governed by equation (6.2 m here. the thickness of the sheeting (assumed to be 1. after welding. A = 35. that the least permitted degree of shear connection will be used. Example 7.26/2 = 494 kN m This is so far below Mpl.2 kN PRd.26/÷2= 0.6.1. using non-ductile connectors. 1043 kN m. 1 = 0. 6. so the design shear flow is 1590/5. It was found that one of these – that there should be only one stud connector per rib of sheeting – could not be satisfied.12) with fy = 355 N/mm2. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES VEd.29 × 192(25 × 20 700)1/2/(1000 × 1.85L.2. where nf is the number for full shear connection. the studs for maximum sagging bending have to be provided within a length of 5. An alternative design.1. 6.1(1): PRd = 0. hsc. The troughs are spaced at 0. is given in Example 6.26 m.6.8(1) the height of the 19 mm studs must be at least 50 + 2 × 19 = 88 mm. the dimensions of the trough in the sheeting (see Fig. From Fig.34) so that a trough with two studs provides the equivalent of 2 × 42.3. It does not follow that the design of this beam as non-composite would be satisfactory. 6.7 × 60.33) (D6.85 kt = 1.25 = 42.03 × 10. It depends on the height of the stud. but £ 0. 2 = 0.2/51. The design compressive force in the slab is 1590 kN. Rd. which is 604 kN m.70 Provided that the studs are not also required to anchor the profiled sheeting.67 = 5.8.2) = 0.6. From clause 6.2 kN (D6.65 single studs. From clause 6.67 × 6 – 318/12 = 188 kN so the point of maximum moment is at a distance 188/35.19) of clause 6.2 = 1.26. but £ 0. by the method used before gives Mpl. satisfies this rule.89. so 26 are available.CHAPTER 6.25 kN This result is modified by a factor kt given in clause 6. or 10.25) = 60.28.24(b).29d2(fckEcm)1/2/γV = 0. Rd.5. Rd.4. The minimum number of connectors in each half of the sagging region is therefore 0. nr. and the maximum sagging moment is MEd = 188 × 5.

2 9. EN 1994-1-1 does not specify how non-uniform shear connection should be arranged.6 B 12.30.6 The design shear flow is (1590 + 639)/7.5 single studs.2 and 43.2 = 31 Hence.65n2h + 36 – n2h = 43. As fsd = 639 kN.2 16 16 2 2 22 22 12 19.0 Distance from support A (m) 8 13. It is quicker to assume that the maximum sagging and hogging bending moments are caused by a single loading. When the hogging moment is a maximum. If the minimum number of troughs with two studs is n2s. The resulting increase in the total number of studs is negligible.2 and 7.5 single studs. respectively. The maximum sagging and hogging bending moments are caused by different arrangements of imposed loading.8 studs. 6.28).5 whence n2h ≥ 11. Rd nL. two studs per trough have to be used over part of the span.8 For the cracked section in hogging bending. Arrangement of stud connectors in one 12 m span 98 .2 = 310 kN/m The arrangement of studs shown in Fig. 6. For a shear span in a building. 1.8 5. which requires 12. so the regions with pairs of studs should be adjacent to the supports. within the lengths 5.65n2s + 26 – n2s = 31 whence n2s ≥ 7. Ed for maximum sagging BM nL.25 m (Fig. 6.5 = 43.6 4. so 36 troughs are available for a total of 31 + 12. Ed for maximum hogging BM 310 306 256 100 A 1. The disadvantage is that it is not clear how many of the troughs with two studs per trough should be near each end of the span.8 Number of troughs Equivalent number of single studs Fig. the distance from an internal support to the cross-section of maximum sagging moment is 7. 1. This method of calculation takes account of this.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 ns = 1590/51.2 m. If the minimum number of troughs with two studs is n2h.30 provides the equivalent of 31. Slip is minimized when the density of the connection is related to the shear per unit length. with the result that two studs near mid-span are effective for both sagging and hogging resistance. nL (kN/m) 422 nL.

for shear between web and flanges of T-sections.35 = 19. pd. From equation (9. From symmetry.CHAPTER 6. The method is a truss analogy. Here.9 × 0.4 of EN 1992-1-1.31. the shear resistance provided by the sheeting is vL. shear surfaces that pass closely around a stud need not be considered.9 mm thick. the critical shear plane. Ed = 10 × 42. The shear resisted by the sheeting is given in clause 6.91 The thickness of the profiled sheeting is shown in Fig. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES a 45 50 a 35 40 20 Fig.6.2. It is assumed to be anchored by a stud.4(5).4.7. Ap fyp.6.31.9 × 0. the end distance a is 40 mm. The design shear for the concrete slab. Detail of a stud welded through discontinuous profiled sheeting (dimensions in mm) Design of the transverse reinforcement Clause 6.0 mm.1/0.9 mm whence kϕ in clause 9.6. rather than the design loading.91 × 20.9 = 2. with a stud spacing of 200 mm. 6. Ppb. 6. Rd = kϕdd0 tfyp. 6. Ed = 211 – 95 = 116 kN/m Clause 6. but the composite slab has not yet been designed. it is assumed to be at least 0. The critical situation is thus where sheeting is not continuous across a beam.6. with some choice provided for the angle θf between the concrete diagonals of the truss and the longitudinal direction. is to be designed to resist 211 kN/m. d.2(1) refers to clause 6. Its maximum occurs where there are two studs per trough.31.7. labelled a–a.4(5).1 kN/stud From clause 6. determines the longitudinal shear.6. with a yield strength of 350 N/mm2 and γM = 1.6. of thickness 80 mm. is vL. The diameter of the weld collar is taken as 1. d = 2.2 = 95 kN/m This must not exceed the yield strength of the sheeting. Rd = 19. as shown in Fig. and is vL. 6.6. For the design bearing resistance of the sheeting it refers to clause 9. For the detailing shown in Fig. which for this sheeting is over 400 kN/m.23 as 1.6.4(2).6.0.1(4) says that the design longitudinal shear for the concrete slab should be ‘consistent with the design and spacing of the shear connectors’.6.1 × 19 = 20. This is taken to mean that the resistance of the shear connection.4(3) is kϕ = 1 + 40/20.2 = 422 kN/m From clause 6. The 99 .10).

28.1. The same beam with semi-continuous joints at support B is studied in Examples 8. creep reduces stiffness at mid-span more than at the internal support. 6.5 m length is linear. Taking account of the use of unpropped construction. It may also be affected by the need for crack control above the beam. From equations (D6.6.2. where the concrete is cracked. 6. so the sagging bending moment and longitudinal shear (for constant loading) reduce over time.2. 6. and is Mc. The area of transverse reinforcement per unit length is given by Asf > vL. The result is shown in Fig.4 in Appendix A gives C4 = 11.6. it is necessary to find Mcr from elastic critical analysis by computer.25) = 213 mm2/m This is much less than the amount assumed in design for lateral buckling (565 mm2/m). Summary of Example 6. Substituting these values into equation (D.4 m from support A (Fig.5 = 16. occurs at 5.2. 435 × 1. these are fcd = fck/γC = 25/1.4(4) of EN 1992-1-1 for a tension flange. Ed = 404 kN m with Ma.1.22) and (D6.6°. For simplicity.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 reinforcement required increases with the angle θf.7 All important aspects of the design of this beam for persistent situations for ultimate limit states have now been considered. the minimum angle given in clause 6.2.1. using the same data. This requires the calculation of the shear flow vL. Fig. Assuming that the bending-moment distribution over this 2.11) is reduced from 12 to 2. with full loading on both spans. with other values unchanged. which is much lower than the previous value.1(3)P on deformation capacity does not apply. Mc. Ed by elastic theory. Let us suppose that lateral bracing is to be provided at this point.1. The design bending-moment diagram for sagging bending in the preceding worked example is shown in Fig.3(3) is not permitted.5 m. the distance of a point of contraflexure from support B is 12 – 2 × 4.35) Example 6.7 N/mm2 and fyd = fyk = 355 N/mm2 (D6. gives Mcr = 2285 kN m.8: partial shear connection with non-ductile connectors 100 . except that the proposed connectors are not ‘ductile’. Serviceability checks are given in the worked example at the end of Chapter 7. to illustrate the use of clause 6. For this situation. A.1. will be used for the whole length of the span. it is found for the loads in Table 6. Ed /(fsd cot θf) = 116/(0.5(2). This work is now repeated. is therefore used. From Fig. so clause 6. 6. 4340 kN m. Calculation of the resistance moment MRd according to clause 6. Ed = 110 kN m (D6.75 = 2.6.2 that the maximum sagging bending moment acting on the composite section. so stresses are calculated by elastic theory and checked against the limits in clause 6. The shear connection for the length AD of span AB was designed for connectors that satisfied the definition of ‘ductile’ in clause 6. so that L in equation (D6.36) In this continuous beam.1. Design of bracing to bottom flanges near the internal support It is now shown that the values of factor C4 given in Appendix A are not suitable for design based on Mcr where intermediate lateral bracing is provided.1 and 10.23). The short-term modular ratio. 38.3(5).11).28.1. No ‘inelastic redistribution of shear’ is required. which arises in the design of the composite slab.6.5 m.30.1. 10. Ed.28).

not 0.CHAPTER 6.23(b)). One stud per trough (vL. 6. not just that applied to the composite member. Near mid-span.56. from Example 6. the force for full shear connection is Nc.33) and (D6.9: elastic resistance to bending. and of the results from Example 6. giving the longitudinal force in the slab as Nc = 4. f = 840/2840 = 0. and shear connection is provided for the whole load. Rd = 128 kN/m) as their spacing. Ed 128 For elastic design. That is higher because in the previous example. η = 0. Rd 311 256 nL. its effects are ignored.30 The elastic shear flow diagram is triangular.5. as before.26).8 5. For simplicity and safety.8 on non-ductile 101 .20 N/mm2. in relation to the plastic resistance to sagging bending.4 Distance from support A (m) No.28 Shrinkage of concrete in this beam reduces both the mid-span moments and the compressive stress in concrete. Rd = 256 kN/m) is not sufficient near support A. the stresses are found to be well below the limits given above. The mean stress in the 80 mm thickness of the concrete slab.8 For ‘ductile’ studs. because the design sagging moment here is unusually low. from Example 6.30. Using the elastic section properties from row 4 of Table 6.5 × 80 = 840 kN From equation (D6. there are five troughs per metre.6. Longitudinal shear and shear resistance for length AD of the beam in Fig.32. it is possible to use one stud every other trough.2 3. 6. and influence of degree of shear connection and type of connector on bending resistance This example makes use of the properties of materials and cross-sections found in Example 6. is less than the limit set in clause 6. It may become more typical in design to the Eurocodes. so the shear flow at support A is vL. This also shows the resistance provided over this 5. of troughs 6 13 8 Fig.5(3). 400 mm. 6. with beff = 2. f = Fc = 2840 kN so the degree of shear connection needed is η = Nc/Nc.34). They are not ‘ductile’ at this low degree of shear connection. Ed = 2 × 840/5. (vL. is 4.4 m length from Fig.5 m. 6.30. For the profiled sheeting used (Fig. This is not a typical result. Their resistances are given by equations (D6. 6.7 0 1.2 × 2.7 on the two-span beam. Example 6. Two studs per trough provide 422 kN/m.4 = 311 kN/m Stud connectors will be used. Details of a possible layout of studs are shown in Fig.3.32. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES nL (kN/m) 422 nL. because of the influence of lateral–torsional buckling on accounting for shrinkage and the restrictions on redistribution of moments.

f Fig. Design methods for partial shear connection connectors. Shrinkage effects are beneficial.3. a. and is increased by creep. Rd = 110 + 610 = 720 kN m The compressive force in the concrete slab is then Nc. The purpose is to find the relationship between the degree of shear connection. in accordance with clauses 6.2. so n = 20.4 m from support A in Fig.36)) is reached first in the steel bottom flange. For Ma.574 0.404 Figure 6.1. and the bending resistance of the beam at mid-span. so that η = Nc.1. point D. with unpropped construction as before.5 and 6.33. only elastic design is permitted.2.1.404 0. It is found that the limiting stress (equations (D6. The result is shown in Fig. so the elastic bending resistance Mel.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Bending moment (kN m) Mpl.5. Rd = 720 B Mpl.6(b) of EN 1994-1-1. From equation (6. Ed = 110 0 0. 102 . The results above enable point B to be plotted. leaving 355 – 73 = 282 N/mm2 for loading on the composite beam.28. At low degrees of shear connection.2. Ed = 110 kN m. 6.8 1.1. Ed = 110 kN m.6.3–6. 110) as shown. 6. f = 1148/2840 = 0.1. Rd is required.8 m. the steel reaches yield when the bending moment on the composite section is 610 kN m.0 h = Nc/Nc. line BE is drawn towards the point (0. 6. For simplicity. Rd = 1043 MRd = 950 D C G Mel. Rd = 604 A 500 E Ma.33 is based on Figs 6.2 0.2 is assumed. η. the maximum stress in the steel beam is 73 N/mm2.2.1. The cross-section of maximum sagging bending moment. It will in practice be determined by the detailing rules for the shear connection. It depends on the modular ratio.2) in clause 6. the beam is now assumed to be simply-supported and of span 10. When MEd = 110 kN m. so Mel. For full shear connection. el = 1148 kN.4(6). Nc = 0. so that this cross-section is at mid-span.3. Using the elastic section properties from row 5 of Table 6.35) and (D6.6.4(6).33. and are neglected. No lower limit to η is defined. to clause 6.2 and 6. 6. so that the bending moment in the steel beam at this section is Ma. was then found to be 5. el/Nc.

3(3) for ductile connectors.7. Rd.7. ‘the elastic critical normal force for the relevant buckling mode’.7.27). 6.3. Similar calculations for assumed degrees of shear connection give the curve ADC.1. a.03 × 10. equation (6. the ‘relative slenderness’ is defined. the plastic resistance is Mpl.7. the required degree of shear connection for non-ductile connectors is given by the line BC.2.CHAPTER 6.574 × 2840 = 1630 kN Using the method of clause 6.7.1.6. which can.33. for which provisions are given in EN 1994-2. ‘column’ means a length of column between adjacent lateral restraints.3. be replaced by the line AC (clause 6. Both the curve and the line are valid only where η is high enough for the connection to be ‘ductile’. but this increases to over 2600 kN for non-ductile connectors. but clause 6.33.2) is the area GDC. Line EBC applies whether the connection is ‘ductile’ or not.2.1(1)P 103 . without restriction on the type of connector. For the beam analysed here. for simplicity.7. 6. unless noted otherwise. These girders may also have composite tension members.5 as ‘a composite member subjected mainly to compression or to compression and bending’. Rd = 1043 kN m from equation (D6. 6.7. the plastic bending resistance is MRd = 950 kN m This gives point D in Fig.25) this is Mpl.2. For this beam. 6. 6. in terms of Ncr. This use of Ncr is explained in the comments on clause 6. and for buildings. 6.1. a.3(5)). and moves to the right as the span increases. typically. Composite columns and composite compression members A composite column is defined in clause 1.12) in clause 6. and line BC (from equation (6. From equation (D6. That term is not generally used in clause 6.1.3)) is drawn. a total bending moment MEd = 1000 kN m (for example) requires shear connection for about 2100 kN (η ª 0.2(1) gives η ≥ 1 – (0.3. General Scope Clause 6. For higher values of MEd.8) = 0. references to ‘columns’ includes other composite compression members. Line BE gives the least shear connection that may be used when MEd < Mel.75 – 0. to make clear that its scope is not limited to vertical members but includes. In this guide.6.2 are used.5.7 includes ‘compression members’. This fixes point C in Fig.2 includes members of non-symmetrical section.6. with fy = 355 N/mm2 and equal steel flanges.574 Hence. The title of clause 6. Rd = 1. The design bending resistances for this example are therefore given by EBGDC in Fig.17. in which all the sections shown have double symmetry. in clause 6. illustrated in Fig.1(6) makes clear that the scope of the general method of clause 6. Instead. 6.1. where the position of the line GD is determined by the span of the beam. Design rules for columns sometimes refer to ‘effective length’.84 6. with Ma. for example. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES Mpl.33. Clause 6. Rd.1. When η = 0.1(1)P refers to Fig. Nc ≥ 0.702 × 355 = 604 kN m which is point A in Fig. Ed = 110 kN m. composite members in triangulated or Vierendeel girders.7.3.3(2). The bonus for using ductile connectors (as defined in clause 6. a storey height.33.74) if headed studs to clause 6.7.

because within a column length the longitudinal shear is normally much lower than in a beam. 6. As shown in Example 6.11.17 as beams without shear connectors is usually prevented by the low design shear strengths due to bond and friction (clause 6.1(2)P are as for beams. which is symmetrical about the line AD. Rd MRd M Fig. 6. N.7.17. made in the modelling for global analysis. γF MEk.1(7) Independent action effects The interaction curve for the resistance of a column cross-section to combined axial force N and uniaxial bending M is shown in Fig. could co-exist with an ‘independent’ axial force that was less than its design value. For these ‘mixed’ structures.8gFNEk B E 0 Mpl.1(7) refers to a situation where at ultimate load the factored bending moment. the use of the cross-sections in Fig. this is the intersection of the axes of symmetry. Clause 6.4.8γF NEk. Rd/2 A D gFNEk 0.7. and column shortening may be needed. Shear connectors should be provided for load introduction. in Fig. and sufficient interaction may be provided by bond or friction.1(3) and clause 5.34.1(3) Clause 6. as appropriate. and strain capacity) would be required. the member should be treated as reinforced concrete or as structural steel. due to an embedded pipe) can be allowed for by ignoring in calculations concrete areas elsewhere. It says that verification should be based on the lower value. such that symmetry is restored. additional consideration in the global analysis of the effects of shrinkage. 6. It has a region BD where an increase in NEd increases MRd. They appear to exclude composite columns in high-rise buildings with a reinforced concrete core. Independent bending moment and normal force (not to scale) Clause 6. following clause 6. as a polygon. The minimum compression for a member to be regarded as a column. If 104 .19. γF NEk. 0.7. is essentially the proportion of the squash load of the section that is provided by the structural steel member. If it is outside the limits given. The steel contribution ratio (clause 6. In other cases the choice. 6.38 of this guide.34.1(4) The bending moment in a column depends on the assumed location of the line of action of the axial force.1(2) both concern the scope of EN 1994-1-1.1(4)). except that class C60/75 and lightweight-aggregate concretes are excluded.1.g. 6. rather than a beam. is not stated. For these. No shear connectors are shown in the cross-sections in Fig.4.85.86 Clause 6.7.7.g.7.7.7. A small degree of asymmetry (e.7.1(2)P Clause 6. The strengths of materials in clause 6. Where the cross-section has double symmetry. should be retained for the analysis of the cross-sections. Clause 6.7. additional provisions (e.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 N C Npm. 6. and. Discussion of this rule is illustrated in Fig. 6.19. for creep. which shows region BDC of the interaction curve in Fig. creep.3). shrinkage.

A simpler but more conservative rule is given in ENV 1994-1-1.3.3. It is applicable unless the bending moment MEd is due solely to the eccentricity of the force NEd. MRd should be taken as Mpl.6. Local buckling The principle of clause 6. Development of software that satisfies these principles is a complex task.3 gives the limit as 44ε. Simplified method of design Scope of the simplified method 105 .34 with the line BC. compared with about 22ε (from EN 1993-1-1) for a Class 2 flange. with a clearer definition of ‘independent actions’: if MRd corresponding to γF NEk is found to exceed Mpl.7.2(3) also refers to ‘elastic-plastic analysis’.2(3)P refers to ‘internal forces’. and then determine the axial force N and bending moment M at a cross-section from assumed values of axial strain and curvature φ.2 Clause 6.’ As the three materials in a composite section follow different non-linear relationships. For a concrete-filled circular hollow section. the method requires second-order analysis in which explicit account is taken of imperfections. This becomes even more complex where biaxial bending is present. Clause 6. These are the action effects within the column length. the limiting d/t of 90ε2 compares with 70ε2 for Class 2 in EN 1993-1-1. 6.7.3.3.1(8)P is followed by its application rules.7.2 is provided both for this reason.10 of EN 1990 as ‘structural analysis that uses stress/strain or moment/curvature relationships consisting of a linear elastic part followed by a plastic part with or without hardening. ε = ÷(235/fy). which leads to the restriction λ £ 2 in clause Clause 6.7. the limit of 52ε compares with about 41ε for a steel RHS.7. Its effect is to replace the curve BDC in Fig. direct analysis of cross-sections is not possible. At present. as shown by point E. For most columns. (In EN 1994. Rd.7. The ‘general method’ of clause 6. General method of design Clause 6.7.2 is more a set of principles than a design method. found from those acting on its ends.8γF NEk. The use of strut curves is limited to axially loaded members.3.1) is Clause 6. but comprehensive software may become available.3.5. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES γF NEk < Npm. and to enable advanced software-based methods to be used. Clause 6.7. such an analysis is likely to exclude member imperfections and second-order effects within members. Rd/2 (D6. Clause 6. Clause 6. determined by global analysis to Section 5.1(1).7.7. but occasionally the need arises for a non-uniform or asymmetric member. The M–N–φ relationship for each section can be found from many such calculations.) For concrete-filled rectangular hollow steel sections (RHS).1 limited mainly by the range of results available. 6.88 Its scope (clause 6.7.37) then MRd should be found for an axial force of 0. the encasement prevents local buckling of the steel web.87 Integration along the length of the column then leads to a non-linear member stiffness matrix that relates axial force and end moments to the axial change of length and end rotations. in units of newtons per square millimetre.CHAPTER 6.2(3)P The method has been calibrated by comparison with test results. The reduction in MRd is usually small. Table 6. They ensure that the concrete (which will be reinforced in accordance with EN 1992-1-1) restrains the steel and prevents it from buckling even when yielded.7.7. using the relevant material properties.2.1(1) 6. Rd. This is defined in clause 1. Designers of composite columns will normally ensure that they fall within the scope of the simplified method of clause 6. For partly encased sections. and prevents rotation of the steel flange at its junction with the web.7.7.1(8)P 6. as in EN 1993. so that a higher bf/t ratio may be used than for a bare steel section. One has first to assume the dimensions and materials of the member.

Npl. 6. Resistance of cross-sections Calculations for composite sections.3. rather than characteristic values. and the 15% reduction is not made. is the ultimate axial load that a short column can sustain.1.3. y > Ia.7.7. These provisions normally ensure that for each axis of bending. Rd.7.2(2) beam in Class 1 or 2 (clause 6. 6.35 for resistance to bending (point B in Fig. as explained in the comments on clause 3. are potentially more complex than for reinforced concrete.2(1) example in equation (6. Greater cover can be used by ignoring in calculation the concrete that exceeds the stated limits. This limit and that on maximum slenderness are unlikely to be restrictive in practice.3.19 and Fig.7. The reference to hc < bc arises because hc is defined as the overall depth in the direction normal to the major axis of the steel section (Fig.1(3) on the reinforcement used in calculation is more liberal than the 4% (except at laps) recommended in EN 1992-1-1. as shown in Fig. and from the limited test data for columns with thicker covers.3.1(1) is to prevent loss of stiffness due to slip. Clause 6.30) for plastic resistance to compression in clause 6.7. 6. 6. that for the concrete extends to the neutral axis. This resistance.7.3. As explained in the comments on clause 3. The term ‘major axis’ can be misleading.7.7.2(1).3.38).7. even though Ia. For concrete-encased sections.1(2) arise from concern over strain softening of concrete invalidating the interaction diagram (Fig.35.1(3) The limit of 6% in clause 6. 6. for Clause 6.3. 106 .3.3.3. because some column sections have Iz > Iy. Points on the interaction curve shown in Figs 6. To compensate for this. is calculated as for a composite Clause 6.7. this simplification is unconservative in comparison with stress/strain curves for concrete and the rules of EN 1992-1-1. Reference to the partial safety factors for the materials is avoided by specifying resistances in terms of design values for strength.85fcd fsd fyd – Mpl.7. The resistance is found using rectangular stress blocks.3. For simplicity.6(1). the crushing stress is taken as 85% of the design cylinder strength. For concrete-filled sections.3. the flexural stiffness of the steel section makes a significant contribution to the total stiffness.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 0.3. Rd. z. the plastic resistance moment for the column section is reduced by a factor αM in clause 6. which would invalidate the formulae for EI of the column cross-section.7. Clause 6. Clause 6.19).1(4) is intended to prevent the use of sections susceptible to lateral–torsional buckling. with three materials.18 and 6. so simplifications to some provisions of EN 1992-1-1 are made in EN 1994-1-1. 6.17). see also the comments on clause 6.7. the concrete component develops a higher strength because of the confinement from the steel section.2(6).1(4) Clause 6. Stress distributions for resistance in bending (tension positive) The restriction on unconnected steel sections in clause 6. Mpl. assuming that the structural steel and reinforcement are yielding and the concrete is crushing.2(2)). Resistance to combined compression and bending The bending resistance of a column cross-section.1(2) The limits to concrete cover in clause 6.19 represent limiting combinations of compressive axial load N and moment M which correspond to the plastic resistance of the cross-section. Rd + + fyd fsd Concrete Steel Reinforcement Fig.1(1).

It is assumed that shear buckling does not occur.10 and C.3(1) Clause 6. then a reduced design yield strength is used for the shear area.3(2)) • the effective flexural stiffnesses (clauses 6.3.7.3. it has no effect.3. 6.85 may be omitted. Properties of the column For columns in a frame.7. In a column.3. 6.7. the neutral axis moves. unless the simplification given in clause 6. Concrete-filled tubes of circular or rectangular cross-section Clause 6.19(B) and Fig.7. and the neutral axis for point D passes through the centroid. Clause 6.3. however.3.2(3) and 6. Further comment is given in Examples 6.3. some properties of each column length are needed before or during global analysis of the frame: • the steel contribution ratio (clause 6.3. and finding pairs of values of M and N from the corresponding stress blocks. Rd.3(4)).3.5Vpl. The coefficients ηa and ηc given in this clause allow for these effects. First.4(2)) • the creep coefficient and effective modulus for concrete (clause 6.3.3(4) 107 . This containment effect is not present to the same extent in concrete-filled rectangular tubes because less circumferential tension can be developed.4 on moment–shear interaction in beams. the location of the neutral axis for pure bending is found.7. 6.2(5) approximation to the interaction curve.2.19 as an Clause 6. The steel contribution ratio is explained in the comments on clause 6. Influence of transverse shear Clauses 6. not just to encased I-sections. and then outside the section.1(4).34 are given in Appendix C. a.3.7. and therefore the effectiveness of containment is further reduced. on the influence of transverse shear on the interaction Clause 6. are generally the same as clause 6. Simplified expressions for the coordinates of points B. by equating the longitudinal forces from the stress blocks on either side of it.7.2(4). 6.3(2) Clause 6.5Vpl.3. In all tubes the effects of containment reduce as bending moments are applied.19.7. With increasing slenderness.35. ηa and ηc are dependent on the eccentricity of loading and on the slenderness of the member. The interaction curve is therefore determined by moving the neutral axis in increments across the section. the shear area depends on the plane of bending considered.3. Simplified interaction curve Clause 6. The values of M and N at each point are easily found from the stress blocks shown in Fig.2(6) compression. there is an option of sharing it between the steel and reinforced concrete sections. If it is less than 0.7. suitable for hand calculation. It is shown in Appendix C that the neutral axis for point C on the interaction diagram is at distance hn on the other side of the centroid.7.3(3) Clause 6. a.7. This requires a computer program.7. If it does not.2(5) explains the use of the polygonal diagram BDCA in Fig.2(4) assumes first that the shear VEd acts on the structural steel section alone.7.7. which may reduce that acting on the steel to below 0. towards the lower edge of the section shown in Fig.1. C and D on the interaction curve in Fig.2(5) is used. The method applies to any cross-section with biaxial symmetry. Let this be at distance hn from the centroid of the uncracked section. Rd.CHAPTER 6.2(6) is based on the lateral expansion that occurs in concrete under axial Clause 6.7.3. One Clause 6. C.2.2(3) curve. for example.7. This increases the crushing strength of the concrete88 to an extent that outweighs the reduction in the effective yield strength of the steel in vertical compression.7. 6. For concrete-filled sections the factor 0.3. and may consist of the flanges of the steel section.3.3(1)) • the relative slenderness λ (clause 6.2 in Appendix C. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES As axial compression increases. If it is greater.3(3) and 6. this is because the mean compressive strain in the concrete and the associated lateral expansion are reduced. as for the web of a beam. For these reasons.7. bowing of the member under load increases the bending moment. as shown in Fig. This causes circumferential tension in the steel tube and triaxial compression in the concrete.3.7.3.

Figure 6. For most columns. 6. so that it is within the scope of the simplified method of clause 6. The design of a column is rarely sensitive to the influence of the creep coefficient on Ec.7.2(3) to 5.3.5(2) enables buckling curves to be used. using end moments and forces from global analysis of the frame. and has already been shown to have λ £ 2.1(a)).4).7. the proposed column is clearly inadequate.2. a single value of effective modulus can be used for all the columns in the frame.3(3) and 6. rather than clause sequence.7.1(2). clause 6. It is assumed that loading is applied to the column only at its ends. The starting point is the output from the global analysis.1(4) and 6. for a member subject only to end compression. If. The axial force NEd is normally almost constant along the column length.3(4)). If bending is biaxial. It depends on the age at which concrete is stressed and the duration of the load. It will often be possible though to make simplifying assumptions to show that a proposed column is within the scope for the method.7.3.7. if the difference is small. the method requires a second-order analysis in which explicit account is taken of imperfections (clause 6. giving in more detail the procedures outlined in the lower part of the flow chart for global analysis (see Fig. 6. in a frame with a high stiffness against sway it would be reasonable to calculate Ncr assuming the member to be pin-ended. The design axial compression is the sum of the forces from the two frames of which the column is assumed to be a member. Conventionally.7. This could require a calculation of the load factor αcr for elastic instability. As λ depends on the elastic critical normal force for the relevant buckling mode. this is a useful simplification because these curves allow for member imperfections.g.3(4).3.36 shows a possible calculation route. In any case.3.1(1). the upper limit on λ is somewhat arbitrary and does not justify great precision in Ncr.36. the chart is followed for each axis in turn.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 The relative slenderness λ is needed to check that the column is within the scope of the simplified method. eff (clause 6.7.3. 5. 6. It is assumed that the column has cross-section details that can satisfy clauses 6. intended to minimize iteration.10. at an end of the column (e. the stiffness of each beam could be taken as that of the steel section alone.g.36.2. they could conservatively be assumed both to be at the upper level.7. In an unbraced continuous frame.7. its maximum value can conservatively be assumed to be applied at the upper end.7.3. Where it varies. These will not be the same for all the columns in a frame.1(e). if the resistance to the normal force NEd is not sufficient. as noted. The correction factor Ke is to allow for cracking. a storey height). the behaviour of the surrounding members needs to be taken into account. Clause 6. is such that member imperfections have been neglected in the global analysis.1(2) to 6.7.4 Verification of a column The flow chart of Fig.2. The relationship between the analysis of a frame and the stability of individual members is discussed in the comments on clauses 5. the top) the joints to beams in these frames are at a different level.2(7). The effective modulus depends also on the proportion of the design axial load that is permanent. The buckling curves are also useful as a preliminary check for columns with end moment. It is assumed that the slenderness of the column. eff. listed at the top of Fig. and hence the flexural stiffness of each column. 6.3. so conservative assumptions can be made about uncertainties. However. following the procedure shown in Fig. clause 6. For columns that qualify. 108 . Comments are now given in the sequence of Fig.3. λ is calculated using characteristic values and the appropriate flexural stiffness is that given in clauses 6. The creep coefficient ϕt influences the effective modulus Ec. Normally.2(1).3. the stability of members is checked by analysis of individual members.3.7.3. for a column as part of a frame. 5. The flow chart does not cover situations where the difference is large (e. The reduction factor χ depends on the non-dimensional slenderness λ .1(9). determined according to clause 5.36 follows this procedure. It is used in Example 6.5. permitting Ncr to be determined from effective length charts that assume a beam to be of uniform stiffness. For example.

3.3. 2 Note 2: For biaxial bending. Check that the cross-section can resist My.4? Yes Either No Or Find MEd . find k2 for b = 1. z Find l to clause 6.7.4(5): find Ncr. and hence k (= k1).7.7. max. a.3. the chart is for both the y and z planes.7. Rd.5Vpl. L. repeat steps since Note 1 for the other axis MEd. max by secondorder analysis of the pin-ended column length with force NEd and end moments MEd. because the member satisfies clause 5.7(2) (END) Fig.3.2(3)) Yes No Note 1: Until Note 2. based on stiffness to clause 6. Is VEd > 0. Rd? (Clause 6.2(2) and 6.5(2)) No Yes Column verified (END) Column not strong enough (END) Find Vpl. bot From NEd and the interaction diagrams.3.3. max and Mz. Rd and Mpl.3. Npl. find mdy and mdz from clause 6. top ≥ MEd. max = MEd.2(2). top and MEd. bot to Table 6.CHAPTER 6. Is NEd £ cNpl.7. Rd. Flow chart for verification of a column length 109 .7(1).2.3. 1 + NEde0 Find MEd.2.36.5(2).2.2.3. then c to clause 6.5Vpl. Ed.3.2.1(3).2(4). Find the axial compression: NEd = NEd. Rd? Yes Find r from clause 6.7. the maximum firstorder bending moment within the column length. II/L2 find b for end moments MEd.3. bow e0 Can first-order member analysis be used. MEd.3.7. for both the y and z axes: NEd. a. (EI)eff.7. y + NEd. 6.2(5)) Apply bow imperfection to clause 6. II and the bending moments at both ends of the column. Ed from clause 6.3. 2 it is From clause 6. 1 = MEd. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES Known. 1 and MEd.7.2(3) No Find interaction curve or polygon for the cross-section (clauses 6. Ed > 0. eff = p2(EI)eff. and the y or z subscript is not given Find Mpl. max = k1MEd + k2NEde0 ≥ MEd. Is Va.7. and hence Va. Ed. Rd to clause 6.3(2).4(2) and hence reduced fyd from clause 6. Rd? No – Yes Is the column in axial compression only? (Clause 6. a.7. Ed and Vc.4.7.7. a. find the design moment for the column. If MEd.4(4). separately. max from clause 6.

36.5 as proportional to the length L of the column between lateral restraints. 6.7. The analysis is to obtain the maximum moment in the column.7. and will already be included within the values for the end moments and forces.2(4). The curved shape is usually assumed to be sinusoidal. because two moment distributions must be considered.4(5) the literature. and second-order effects will usually need to be included. and αcr is found using the Euler formula Ncr. gives the example of a column in uniform single-curvature bending. The curve is assumed initially to lie in the plane of the frame being analysed. or the maximum bending moment may occur at an intermediate point along the member.3(3) because it is essentially a design value for ultimate limit states.7.3(4)). This can be done by second-order analysis of the member. Columns with transverse shear exceeding half of the shear resistance of the steel element are rare.3. The first gives the equivalent moment k1MEd in the ‘perfect’ column. The next box. max.3. is likely to be the greater end moment. Columns without end moments are exceptional.7. In general. Formulae may be obtained from Clause 6. two calculations are necessary (clause 6.3. but shear is checked next. The factor Ko is from research-based calibration studies. In the text before equation (6. and on the interaction curve or polygon.36 that the column is free from intermediate lateral loads. with the modulus of elasticity for concrete modified to take account of long-term effects (clause 6. The maximum bending moment may occur at one end. Second-order effects can therefore be neglected if the load factor αcr for elastic instability of the member exceeds 10.7. MEd. written as k1 and k2.1(3). Two factors are used.4(3) refers to clause 5. The definitions of MEd in clause 6.7. This is because second-order effects and lateral load within the length of the member and initial bowing affect the bending moment.2. use may be made of the factor k given by clause 6. max. it is necessary to Clause 6. Alternatively. II allows for cracking. Table 6.7. Any intermediate loads would also be applied.3. but use of a circular arc would be acceptable. In practice. To calculate αcr. most columns are relatively slender.3.4(5) and Table 6. The flexural stiffness to use is (EI)eff.3. when the design moment equals to the larger of the two end moments.4(5). as shown in Fig. This is because it does not include second-order effects arising within the column length. Possible sway effects will have been determined by global analysis. calculation of this parameter may still be simplified. When λ is used as the basis for resistance. which is taken as the design moment. 110 . on finding MEd.4(2)).3. the ends of the column are assumed to be pinned.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Comment has already been made on the calculation of λ when used to check the scope of the method. This flexural stiffness is lower than that defined in clause 6. If the end moments are dissimilar or of opposite sign. MEd. Clause 6. Much of the remainder of the flow chart is concerned with finding the maximum bending moment to which the column will be subjected.43). However.4 makes clear that MEd is to be determined by either first-order or second-order global analysis. max.7.6(1)). II (clause 6.3. treated as pin-ended but subject to the end moments and forces given by the global analysis.7. If member imperfections have been neglected in the global analysis.4(4) gives the member imperfections in Table 6. 6.7. provided the result is conservative. The imperfection is the lateral departure at mid-height of the column of its axis of symmetry from the line joining the centres of symmetry at the ends of the column. Clause 6. eff = π2EI/L2. the maximum moment in the column.4 may appear contradictory. the choice would depend on clause 5. The values account principally for truly geometric imperfections and for the effects of residual stresses. because if it is high the interaction curve for the cross-section may be affected. MEd is referred to as a first-order moment.3. where MEd is the larger end moment given by the global analysis.2(3) and 6.7. L being the physical length of the column.3. The factor Ke. It is assumed in Fig. The neglect of second-order effects does not mean that increase in bending moment caused by the member imperfection can also be ignored. on shear.7. Comment has been given earlier on clauses 6. They do not depend on the distribution of bending moment along the column.3. and for most members the design process continues.3. The next step is to ascertain whether second-order effects need to be considered within the member length.4(4) include them in the analysis of the column.2.

Equation (6. The appropriate component is therefore k1MEd without the limit k ≥ 1.3.3. Clauses Clause 6.1(3) bending. as explained in the comment on clause 3. but this is not ‘significant’ slip for a resistance model based on plastic behaviour and rectangular stress blocks.7.18.4.7(1). so the assumed path should not extend beyond the introduction length given in clause 6.7(1)). This is unconservative.4) allows for the shape of the bending-moment diagram. it could be conservative to limit all values of k in this way.7.47) applies. It is unlikely to be needed elsewhere.CHAPTER 6. in which they are written as My. so k2 normally differs from k1.7. shear stress is likely to exceed the design shear strength from clause 6. For uniaxial bending. This factor allows for the increase in the compressive strain in the cross-section at yield of the steel (which is adverse for the concrete). Shear connection and load introduction Load introduction 111 . including shear at the interface.3. In biaxial bending.2(1)). 6. max have been found for both axes.7.7. Clause 6. omitting the member imperfection. for a combination of end moments and member imperfection.4.7. In this partly plastic situation. Ed and Mz.44 in the table is to ensure sufficient protection against snap-through buckling in double-curvature bending.1(2)P give the principles for limiting slip to an ‘insignificant’ level in the Clause 6. from Table 6.7.1(3) refers to the special case of an axially loaded column. as shown in Fig. a long load path implies greater slip.1(2)P critical regions: those where axial load and/or bending moments are applied to the column.3.4.1(1).7 applies.6 is very low. it may be helpful to recalculate the less critical bending moment. when the two are combined.4. unless the shear strength τRd from Table 6.46) will govern. being based on rectangular stress blocks. the initial member imperfection may be neglected in the less critical plane (clause 6.3. the relevant check for uniaxial bending. The imperfection can be in any direction.4. so the equivalent moment k2NEd e0 always has the same sign as k1MEd. and the design moment within the column length is (k1MEd + k2NEd e0).4.3.6(1) it is reduced.4. clause 6. so in clause 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES The multiplier β (from Table 6. The condition β ≥ 0.7.2(2).7.4.0. when the yield strength of the steel is increased. or the member is also acting as a beam. However. Where axial load is applied through a joint attached only to the steel component. max with compression NEd. In regions of load introduction. and this is correct for a single distribution of bending moment.43) states that k must be greater than or equal to unity. has a distribution such that β = 1. Rd with axial load NEd. or has a high degree of double-curvature Clause 6.1(1)P and 6.7. and therefore could be small. The first-order moment from the imperfection. The limit k ≥ 1. the more adverse of the elastic and fully plastic models gives a safe result 6. the linear interaction given by equation (6. equation (6.6(1) factor αM that depends on the grade of structural steel.7. by the use of a Clause 6.7. Ed.4. as permitted by clause 6. Clause 6. and shear connection is then required (clause 6. Accurate calculation is rarely practicable where the cross-section concerned does not govern the design of the column. If one is much greater than the other. However.3.4.7 The provisions for the resistance of cross-sections of columns assume that no significant slip occurs at the interface between the concrete and structural steel components. For any assumed ‘clearly defined load path’ it is possible to estimate stresses. Biaxial bending Where values of MEd. At mid-length the component due to end moments depends on their ratio. Few shear connectors reach their design shear strength until the slip is at least 1 mm.7. the final step is to check that the cross-section can resist MEd.7.7.1(1)P 6. the force to be transferred to the concrete can be estimated from the relative axial loads in the two materials given by the resistance model. r. The interaction diagram gives a resistance µd Mpl. If the member fails this biaxial condition by a small margin. NEde0.7.4. Otherwise.0 is intended to ensure that the design moment is at least the larger end moment MEd.

They rely on friction. which must have a resistance equal to the force Nc1. Detailing at points of load introduction or change of cross-section is assisted by the high Clause 6.4.7. If longitudinal reinforcement is ignored.2(9) Figure 6.5 Concern about the attachment of concrete to steel in partially encased I-sections appears Clause 6. respectively.7.11) relevant to the principle of Clause 6.7.7. not bond.7. with axial loading: • • • steel tube with external diameter 300 mm and wall thickness 10 mm bearing plate 15 mm thick.4. and the column is mainly Clause 6.23 illustrates the requirement of clause 6.3(5) again in clause 6. The design shear strengths τRd in Table 6.4.7. for covers up to 115 mm.7. Radial shrinkage is outweighed by the lateral expansion of concrete in compression. Friction is also the basis for the enhanced resistance of stud Clause 6. due to creep and shrinkage.2(4) connectors given in clause 6. with a long-term value below 10–4.7)0. and are related to the extent to which separation at the interface is prevented.7.3 gives application rules (used in Example 6.4.4.7. Rd /fcd = [1 + (4.5. 6.2(4).7. it may be simpler to provide shear connection based on a conservative (high) estimate of the force to be transferred.4. this is given by Nc1 = Ac2/2nA where A is the transformed area of the cross-section 1–1 of the column in Fig.2(6) are assumed for the detail shown in Fig. separation tends to develop between the encasement and the web.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Clause 6.7.4.2(3) connection (clause 6. σc.4. for only the autogenous shrinkage strain occurs.7. From equation (6. but not on the web. mainly for erection. models based on elastic theory are over-conservative in this inherently stable situation. Rd = 8. 6.7.4. with strength fy = fyd = 355 N/mm2 concrete with fck = 45 N/mm2 and γC = 1.4. for its inelastic Poisson’s ratio increases at high compressive stress.1. Transverse shear Clause 6. Clause 6.2(3)).4.9 × 10/300)(355/45)](14. For example.22(B). for which τRd = 0.2(9) for transverse reinforcement.3(4) provides a useful increase to τRd. more simply presented as βc = 0.7. last line).8 and σc.7. the following data Clause 6.7. because under weak-axis bending. clause 6. the proportion of the force resisted by the concrete gradually decreases.48). As an example.4.4(6) of EN 1992-1-1.2(6). lateral expansion of the concrete creates pressure on the flanges.4.2(5) and 6. 112 .4. It could be inferred from clause 6.8 × 30 = 260 N/mm2 This bearing stress is so high that the fin plate would need to be at least 180 mm deep to have sufficient resistance to vertical shear.4.3 clause 6. Then.7. The application rules that follow are based mainly on tests. A1 = 15 × 280 = 4200 mm2.3(4) concrete.5 = 8. in partially encased I-sections. Where small steel I-sections are provided.4. Ac = π × 1402 = 61 600 mm2.2(1) that shear connection should be provided for a high proportion of the force applied.6 are far lower than the tensile strength of concrete. in section 1–1. However.4. for columns with the longitudinal shear that arises from transverse shear.3(5). where large strains are acceptable. shrinkage effects are low.1(2). from clause 3.7.23.7.2(5) bearing stresses given in clauses 6.4.7.2(1). In a concrete-filled tube.4.2 + cz/50 £ 2.2(1) (clause 6. In practice. given by A = As + (Ac1 + Ac2)/n and Ac1 and Ac2 are the unshaded and shaded areas of concrete.4. Where axial force is applied by a plate bearing on both materials or on concrete only. Friction then provides significant shear Clause 6. and the highest shear strengths are for concrete within steel tubes.

5 = 16. Ecm = 31 kN/mm2. 6.1(2).10: composite column with bending about one or both axes A composite column of length 7. 6. Geometrical properties of the cross-section In the notation of Fig.2(4) refers to exposure class X0 of EN 1992-1-1. the calculations follow the sequence of the flow chart in Fig. so the minimum thickness is increased to 40 mm in clause 6.1(2) Minimum longitudinal reinforcement (clause 6. z = 48. n0 = 210/31 = 6. in the usual notation. bc = hc = 400 mm b = 256 mm h = 260 mm cz = 200 – 130 = 70 mm cy = 200 – 128 = 72 mm These satisfy the conditions of clauses 6.5.2 N/mm2. so some buildings.7. 6. fcd = 25/1. is needed to control the width of Clause 6.CHAPTER 6.575 mm3 10. fsk = 500 N/mm2. After checking that the column is within the scope of the simplified method.5. Cross-section and properties of a composite column (dimensions in mm) 113 .85fcd = 14. The properties of the materials.7 N/mm2. y = 143.7.17(a). ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES If a steel I-section in an environment in class X0 to EN 1992-1-1 has links in contact with its flange (permitted by clause 6.37.7.3.5. Detailing provisions Example 6. Buildings with ‘very low air humidity’ are given as an example. the cover to the steel section could be as low as 25 mm. or spaces in buildings.3. z = 0. Its resistance to given action effects will be found. Area of reinforcement = 4 × 36π = 446 mm2 Area of concrete = 4002 – 11 400 – 446 = 148 150 mm2 400 256 72 Steel section: 254 × 254 UC89 Aa = 11 400 mm2 10–6Ia. Ea = 210 kN/mm2.2(4) environment.2(1) cracks. 6.5 12 ∆ Fig. 254 × 254 UC89.5.5. Reinforcement: ribbed bars.7.5.7.77. 0.1 mm4 70 17. are taken from section tables.7. Clause 6.7. 6. are as follows: Structural steel: grade S355.228 mm3 400 260 10–6Wpa.5. fck = 25 N/mm2.37. For a wide steel flange.7. so all the concrete casing is included in the calculations.1(2). would not qualify.7.5.15 = 435 N/mm2.3 10–6Ia.36.1(2).7. this thin layer of concrete would have little resistance to buckling outwards. and given here in Eurocode notation.5 mm4 10–6Wpa. The minimum reinforcement provides robustness during construction. fy = fyd = 355 N/mm2.0 m has the uniform cross-section shown in Fig. Clause 6. with ‘no risk of corrosion or attack’.2(3)). fsd = 500/1.5.1(4) and 6.2(1)). This is a ‘very dry’ Clause 6.7. y = 1. which can be caused by shrinkage even in columns with concrete nominally in compression. Concrete: C25/30. 6. The properties of the steel member.

From clause 6. For simplicity. Mz.41).3. top = 50 kN m is determined. so clause 6.7.2.7.7 = ϕt The assumed ‘age at first loading’ has little influence on the result if it exceeds about 20 days. Ec = Ecm/[1 + (NG. Npl.7. significant load were applied at age 10 days. 3.2. and hence the stability.1 mm4 10–6Ia. Ed. so the values are Aa = 11 400 mm2 For the steel section: 10–6Ia.3. however.5. If. Later. with characteristic stiffness The minor axis is the more critical.7. the effect of adding Mz.2(1) permits it to be included in calculations.2(1). From clause 3. z = 48. From equation (6. Npl.1 kN/mm2 Elastic critical load. and t is taken as ‘infinity’.301% of the concrete area. Ec.41) The creep coefficient ϕt is ϕ(t.5.3(1).3(3).3.7. top = 380 kN m. eff = 31/[1 + 2. t0) to clause 5.4. y = 143.5 mm4 Ac = 4002 – 11 400 = 148 600 mm2 As = 0 Design action effects.6 × 14.4(5) of EN 1992-1-1. For λ to clause 6. as creep reduces the stiffness.3.2 = 4047 + 2109 = 6156 kN From clause 6.7.4 × 355 + 148.657 which is within the limits of clause 6. Rd = Aa fyd + 0. 30) = 2.5 × 2109 = 7210 kN Creep coefficient From clause 6. of a column.3. top = 0 The bending moments at the lower end of the column and the lateral loading are zero.1.1 of EN 1992-1-1 give ϕ(•.7. Ed /NEd)ϕt] (6. ultimate limit state For the most critical load arrangement. The time t0 is taken as 30 days.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 The reinforcement has area 0. ϕt would be increased to about 3.3(2).7(1200/1800)] = 11.85Ac fcd = 11. Properties of the column length From clause 6.3. 114 . Rk = 4047 + 1. Ed.3(4). the graphs in Fig. the steel contribution ratio is δ = 4047/6156 = 0.1(4). its small contribution will be ignored. Ed. the ‘perimeter exposed to drying’ is u = 2(bc + hc) = 1600 mm so h0 = 2Ac/u = 297 200/1600 = 186 mm Assuming ‘inside conditions’ and the use of normal cement. global analysis gives these values: NEd = 1800 kN. Ed = 1200 kN My. with γC = 1. of which NG. so λ z is needed.

40) In this example.1 × 2085 = 24 070 kN mm2 (6. Rd = 0. y = 1990 mm4 Ncr.42 × 4002/12 – 48.3. 6. Ed. buckling curve (c) is applicable.0 m.2(5) permits them to be used as approximations to the N–M interaction curves for the cross-section.38. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES (EI)eff = EaIa + KeEc.22.3. Resistance to axial load.7. 6.5(2). 7.0. Ed = 380/7 = 54 kN This is obviously less than 0. Interaction curves The interaction polygons corresponding to Fig.4 of EN 1993-1-1.91 The non-dimensional slenderness does not exceed 2. so clause 6. but no elastic rotational restraint.40).39(a). z-axis From clause 6.7.43 × 6156 = 2647 kN This condition is satisfied. NEd £ χz Npl.7. 6. z = L/200 = 35 mm The mid-length bending moment due to NEd is NEd e0.1).19 are determined in Appendix C (see Example C.43 From equation (6.5Vpl. Rd. and reproduced in Fig.22 Similar calculations for the y-axis give 10–6Ic.3.2(3) does not apply. y = 8715 kN 10–6(EI)eff. and Ncr. Rk/Ncr.3.6 × 11. top = 380 kN m. 10–6(EI)eff. y = 43 270 kN mm2 λ y = 0.39). a. z = 0. z = π2(EI)eff. z = 210 × 48.3.CHAPTER 6. Clause 6. 115 . 6. the equivalent member imperfection is e0. From clause 6. so clause 6.7.5 = 2085 mm4 From equation (6. for λ z = 1.5 = 1.39(b). the end conditions for the column are assumed to be such that lateral restraint is provided. First-order bending moments. χz = 0.5 + 0.1(1) is satisfied. the transverse shear is Vz. Transverse shear For My. From Fig.035 = 63 kN m Its distribution is shown in Fig.4(4). 6.44).5 = (7210/4848)0. z = 1800 × 0. 10–6Ic. z/L2 = 24 070π2/49 = 4848 kN From equation (6.7. effIc For the concrete. y-axis The distribution of the external bending moment is shown in Fig. so the effective length is the actual length. λ z = (Npl. z)0.

7.4(5).87 116 .156 A 5 328 Major axis 4 Minor axis 414 504 534 C 2. and from equation (6. r = 0.39.5 × 11.66.9(EaIa + 0.87 M from initial bow (kN m) k2 = 1.66/(1 – 1800/7450) = 0. k1 = β/(1 – NEd/Ncr. y.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 NRd (MN) 6 6. eff) = 0.38.482 1.70 × 1010 kN mm2 Hence.32 0.9 × 106(210 × 143.1 × 1990) = 3. (EI)y. Table 6. y.66 × 380 First order k1 = 0. for the end moments.5EcIc) = 0. β = 0.5 7.3. From equation (6. eff.4(3). so second-order effects must be considered. II = 0. 6. eff = 37 000π2/72 = 7450 kN This is less than 10NEd. Design second-order bending moments for a column of length 7.43).80 D 1.4. Interaction polygons for bending about the major and minor axes My.0 0 3. to clause 6.87 × 380 83 63 0 3. y-axis From clause 6.42).3.1 + 0.5 7.0 x (m) x (m) (a) (b) Fig.7. 6. Ncr. Ed (kN m) 380 0. a reduced value of Ncr is required.0 m To check whether second-order moments can be neglected.241 3 2 1 559 0 B 200 333 400 600 MRd (kN m) Fig. Second-order bending moments.

Rd = 504 + (2482 – 1800) × 55/(2482 – 1241) = 534 kN m This exceeds Mpl. max /µd. so clause 6. Ed.7.1 × 2085) = 1.6(1) is satisfied. Rd = µd. as it will be combined with the effect of imperfections.204 = 1. Ncr. so major-axis failure is assumed. but second-order effects have to be considered.38. eff. Ed. My.39(b)). 6. max /0.21 so Mz.0.66.1(7) would not alter the result. From equation (6.38.CHAPTER 6.3. k1 = 0. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES This is not increased to 1. z. The point (NEd. max) is (1800.32 thus increasing Nede0. (EI)z. For the bending moment from the member imperfection.7. so the major-axis bending moments are as shown in Fig.0.9. β = 0. Ed.5 + 0. The column is strong enough. 414) on Fig. β = 1.78 This is below 0. y. In this case. From the values shown in the figure.7(1). Rd = 414/534 = 0. 6. Rd = 330 kN m From clause 6. Rd lies on line CD in Fig. From clause 6. zMpl.43). eff = 19 600π2/49 = 3948 kN m As before. max = 1. for NEd = 1800 kN.5/(0. z to 83 kN m (Fig. My. and the column cannot resist the additional bending moment. z. It is much smaller than My. Biaxial bending The effect of adding a minor-axis bending moment Mz.6(2) is relevant. Ed. and from equation (6. 6. From equation (6. not on line BD.7.9Mz. Ed.3. so the check is thus not satisfied. The ratio My.5 × 11. it makes no difference whether NEd and MEd are from independent actions or not. 6.7(2).3.3. Ed.7. Rd + Mz. The total mid-length bending moment is 331 + 83 = 414 kN m This exceeds the greater end moment. 6. and so governs. yMpl.96 × 1010 kN mm2 Hence. Ed. 380 kN m. 117 .39(a).9 × 330) = 0.7. II = 0.42). Rd.0.66/(1 – 1800/3948) = 1.21 × 50 = 60. there is assumed to be no bow imperfection in the x–y plane. max /0.9 × 106(210 × 48.5 kN m From Fig.9My.07 This exceeds 1. My. top = 50 kN m is as follows.38. k2 = 1/(1 – 1800/7450) = 1. Rd = 414/(0.43). y. because the point My. so clause 6.9 × 534) + 60. so the ‘additional verification’ to clause 6. Mz.861 + 0.

As an example.7. Ed.40 is used as a simply-supported beam of span 8.165) = 123 kN This exceeds Vz.10.48 × 2959 × 400/(28 000 × 0.11: longitudinal shear outside areas of load introduction. and are not repeated here.77 is used. 6. 400 cz = 70 B B 400 G Fig. Creep and cracking should be considered.1 mm4 10–6Ic.6 = 0.6. 10–6Ia.6 are unlikely to be high enough to permit omission of shear connection from a column member with significant transverse loading. Rd = τRd Iy bc/(Aex z) = 0. The critical cross-section is B–B in Fig.37. it is assumed that the column section of Fig. The margin is so great that there is no need to consider the effect of cracking. with uniformly distributed loading.1 × 6. The cover cz = 70 mm.4.3(2) permits the use of elastic analysis.40. Column section used as a beam The shear strengths given in Table 6.7.0 m. Hence.4. so no shear connection is needed. 6. βc = 1.3(4).77 = 2959 mm4 The ‘excluded area’ Aex = 400 × 70 = 28 000 mm2 and its centre of area is z = 200 – 35 = 165 mm from G in Fig. Ed = 54 kN The maximum shear that can be resisted without provision of shear connection is now calculated.48 N/mm2 From Example 6. τRd = 0. Vz. y = 143.40.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Example 6.30 × 1.60. so the modular ratio n0 = 6. 6. 6. Creep reduces the shear stress on plane B–B. for a composite column All of the data for this example are given in Example 6. 10–6Iy = 1990 + 143.10 and Fig. Uncracked section properties are used. Clause 6.49) in clause 6. y = 1990 mm4 so for the uncracked section in ‘concrete’ units. so from equation (6. From Table 6. The design transverse shear was found to be Vz. 6.40 Longitudinal shear on plane B–B in a column cross-section (dimensions in mm) 118 . and cracking is considered later.

For fatigue strength of concrete and reinforcement. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES Using elastic analysis of the cracked cross-section with n0 = 6.1(3) Clause 6.2(1) 119 . and structural steel is covered mainly by cross-reference to EN 1992 and EN 1993. used here and in clause 6.2(1) refers to EN 1992-1-1. Clause 6. as used in bridge design) are not considered here. concrete. or 0. but no axial load.77 as before. These apply. This may not be so for buildings with partial shear connection.35. They refer extensively to EN 1993-1-9.1(4) Resistance factors γMf may be given in National Annexes. 3 and 4 (e. Fatigue in reinforcement.2. and the use of partial safety factors for ultimate-load design normally ensures that peak fatigue stresses are below this limit. Fatigue damage is related mainly to the number and amplitude of the stress ranges. cracked = 1441 mm4 Vz. General The term ‘equivalent constant-amplitude stress range’.89 Fatigue Strength.8. where travelling cranes or fork-lift trucks are used. respectively.8. or several stress ranges. Clause 6.8. equ(N*)) by using the Palmgren–Miner rule for summation of fatigue damage.7 kN/m. which recommends the partial factors 1.8.25. Fatigue Although fatigue verification is mainly needed for bridges.8. has the same meaning as ‘damage equivalent stress range’. for a fatigue failure of a steel flange caused by a stud weld.2. EN 1993-1-9 recommends values ranging from 1. The peak of the stress range has a secondary influence that can be. so clause 6. The only complete set of provisions on fatigue in EN 1994-1-1 is for stud shear connectors. 6.1(4) gives guidance on the types of building where fatigue assessment may be required. For structural steel.2.1. The Eurocode methods for fatigue are quite complex. NE.CHAPTER 6.5 of EN 1992-1-1.6PRk for γV = 1. 6. Composite Bridges.75PRd.8. 6. By reference to EN 1993-1-1.15. which is only 4. these ‘general’ provisions find application in some buildings.g. the results are 10–6Iy.11 of EN 1993-1-9. for example. Damage equivalent factors (typically λ. Commentary will be found in the guides to those codes. as appropriate. at a given point.8.5 and 1. ∆σE. clause 6.8. Rd = 79 kN This corresponds to a design ultimate load of 19. these include buildings with members subject to wind-induced or crowd-induced oscillations. defined in clause 1. but these should in practice be kept out of the structure by appropriate mountings.8.4 times the unfactored weight of the member. ignored in practice for peak stresses below about 60% of the characteristic strength. There are supplementary provisions in EN 1994-2. ‘Repeated stress cycles from vibrating machinery’ are also listed. so only the recommended values can be discussed here.0 to 1. and usually is. Designers’ Guide to EN 199490). that can be represented as N* cycles of a single ‘damage equivalent stress range’ (e. which is also ‘general’.6.1(3) limits the force per stud to 0. Ultimate loads are higher than peak fatigue loads. Reference may be made to guides in this series to Part 2 of Eurocodes 2. depending on the design concept and consequence of failure. Partial factors for fatigue assessment Clause 6. ∆σE(NE) or ∆τE(NE).8. of a loading event for which can be calculated.7 Comments here are limited to design for a single cyclic loading: a defined number of cycles. either: • • a single range of stress.g.

3. Studs are provided in large numbers. Initial fatigue cracking further alters the relative stiffnesses and the local stresses.0 comes from experience with bridges. From clause 3(2) of EN 1993-1-9. or y on x) can alter the value found by up to three. Clause 6. adventitious connection from bolt heads. and are well able to redistribute shear between themselves.4. the use of the damage tolerant method should be satisfactory.91. s = 1. Fatigue failure results from a complex interaction between steel and concrete. not involving the flange. but not yet quantified. which are often inconsistent.. While fatigue design methods for stud connectors continue to be conservative (for bridges and probably for buildings too) the precise value for m is of academic interest. caused by a defined event.0. as in EN 1993-1-9. tests show a wide scatter in fatigue lives. mostly based on linear-regression analyses. It is a complex matter to deduce a value for m from the mass of test data.92 Most of them (e. The recommendation of EN 1994-1-1 is based on other considerations. Research has found that the exponent that relates the cumulative damage to the stress range may be higher than the value.8. partial interaction.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Fatigue failure of a stud shear connector. corresponds to the value in EN 1993-1-9 for ‘damage tolerant design concept’ with ‘low consequence of failure’. It defines the slope m of the line through this point on the log–log plot of range of stress ∆τR against number of constant-range stress cycles to failure. The strongest reason for not recommending a value more conservative than 1. may be too high. 6. five.1. a 10% reduction in stress range more than doubles the fatigue life. As may be expected from the involvement of a tiny volume of concrete..8. many reasons for this remarkable experience. provided that ‘a prescribed inspection and maintenance regime for detecting and correcting fatigue damage is implemented.8. the first author has stated that there is no known instance of fatigue failure of a stud in a bridge. eight. permanent set. as discussed later. which was also used in BS 5400: Part 10.4. With an eighth-power law.91 The value eight.’.g. would give more weight to the much higher number of average-range components. Internal forces and fatigue loadings The object of a calculation is usually to find the range or ranges of stress in a given material at a chosen cross-section. Whenever occasion has arisen in print or at a conference. In design for a loading spectrum. where stud connectors have been used for almost 50 years. shear lag. The second condition applies to stud connectors. but the first does not. Values for m recommended in the literature range from 5 to 12. for lack of access prevents detection of small cracks by any simple method of inspection.8. The value recommended in a note to clause 2. as follows. This has not been challenged. γMf. for other welds in shear. ∆τC = 90 N/mm2. Many types of test specimen have been used. such as five. Research has identified. Any future proposals for more accurate methods for prediction of stress ranges should be associated with re-examination of the value for m. for example. is controversial.25). and the resulting scatter of results must be disentangled from that due to inherent variability. uses a reference value of range of shear stress at 2 million cycles. and probably also altering the tension. other than a few clearly attributable to errors in design. This displaces upwards the line of action of the shear force. and friction) lead to predicted stress ranges on studs lower than those assumed in design. Fatigue strength 6. increasing the bending and shear in the shank just above the weld collar.3(3).g. the passage of a vehicle along 120 . A note to this clause states that the damage tolerant method may be applied where ‘in the event of fatigue damage occurring a load redistribution between components of structural elements can occur’. NR (Fig. 6. The method of regression used (x on y. its practical effect is that the cumulative damage is governed by the highest-range components of the spectrum (e. commencing with powdering of the highly stressed concrete adjacent to the weld collar. which is allowed for in the design resistances. by the small number of maximum-weight lifts made by a crane).2(7)P. slip. The value chosen for EN 1994-1-1.3(3) The format of clause 6. A lower value. is covered by EN 1994-1-1.

or for the charging floor for a blast furnace.5. Redistribution of moments is not permitted.g. which shows that MEd. i Qk. only one G and one Q are relevant.5. in theory. is illustrated in Example 6. so for the shear connection it may be possible to consider the beam in isolation.26. and so tends to increase with time. The designer chooses a location where fatigue is most likely to govern.1(2)P and 6. Most fatigue verifications are for load cycles with more than 104 repetitions. this can usually be represented by the same simplified model.2. if it increases the relevant stress.8. NEd.4(1). The short-term modular ratio should therefore be used when finding stress ranges from the cyclic action Qfat.2. ‘Shakedown’ here includes the changes due to cracking. For analysis. clause 5.4(1). remains approximately constant after an initial shakedown period. 1 Qk.3.1(3)). the mean cycle time is less than 2 days. They are all relevant. Thus. Analogous use of calculated tensile forces in a concrete slab (e. f is the bending moment that causes the greatest tension in the slab.8. Often. max. Qfat: it is the ‘frequent’ combination. the maximum value should be checked.4(1) refers to a relevant clause in Eurocode 2. the stiffnesses of members. They also influence the maximum value of the fatigue stress range.8.) may sometimes be necessary. Stresses 121 .4.8. for example. such as the passage of a vehicle of known weight. such as forging. below. load fluctuations slow enough to cause creep (e. but ranges of vertical shear. This defines the non-cyclic loading assumed to co-exist with the design value of the cyclic load. etc. creep from permanent loading should be allowed for.1(1) refers to a list of action effects in clause 7. max. j + P + ψ1. and perhaps the two adjacent column lengths. Where a peak stress is being checked.4.8.g. For this number in a 50 year life. The effect of tension Clause 6.g.1(3) travelling along a continuous beam. from the action effects is based entirely on elastic theory. are barely influenced by the rest of the structure. The design combination is then Gk + ψ1Qk + Qfat (D6. represented by Clause 6. and is positive. the critical section for shear connection may be near mid-span.8. Cracking depends mainly on the heaviest previous loading. The sign convention is evident from Fig.1(3)).8. chosen from clause 5. 1 + Â ψ2. for reinforcement.5.5. for most verifications for the structural steel in a composite beam. the linear-elastic method of Section 5 is used. This may not be so for industrial processes with dynamic effects.5. that is used for other global analyses.8.8. The extent of a continuous structure that needs to be analysed depends on what is being checked.8.4(1) ÂG j≥1 k. but other uncertainties are likely to outweigh those from creep.4. This would apply. However. For a fatigue check on reinforcement it would be necessary to include at least two spans of the beam.5. Clause 6.2.38) Clause 6.4(2) also refers to internal forces. Clause 6. the limit for shear connectors in clause 6. i i>1 where the Qs are non-cyclic variable actions. f.8. hence. 6.8.1(1)P to be taken into account Clause 6.1. to the extent of cracking. it is near an internal support. which is limited for each material (e. Loading other than the vehicle influences the extent of cracking in the concrete.8. Clause 6.12. or of shear flow. from the use of a tank for storing fuel oil) are unlikely to be numerous enough to cause fatigue damage.CHAPTER 6. as the vehicle passes. but does not give symbols. and there is no prestress. from clause 6. and.8. Calculation of range of stress.5.1(1) ‘where relevant’.8. 6. It is unusual for any of these limits to be reached in design for a building. The provisions for fatigue are based on the assumption that the stress range caused by a given fluctuation of loading. but if there are highly stressed cross-sections where most of the variable action is cyclic. For a vehicle Clause 6.5.4(2) defines symbols that are used for bending moments in clause 6.1(2)P stiffening (clauses 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES a beam. following clause 7. shrinkage and creep of concrete that occur mainly within the first year or two.4(2) Clause 6.

6.5.5. denoted NC. Clause 6. the concession in clause 6.5. so it is simplest to use uncracked section properties when calculating the range of shear flow from Clause 6. max.41. These points are illustrated in Example 6.12. MEd.5. and relates to the provisions of EN 1992 and EN 1993.2(1) refers to clause 6. Spacing of shear connectors near internal supports is unlikely to be governed by fatigue. fatigue of concrete is unlikely to influence design. in effect. from equation (7.1 is more relevant to the complex cyclic loadings that occur in bridges than to buildings. The use of the uncracked section for MEd.40) Clause 6. max. the effects of tension stiffening may be included or Clause 6.8.1(5)P requires the tensile strength of concrete to be neglected in calculations for σs.8. Tension stiffening tends to diminish with repeated loading. f the stress σs. the resistance ∆σRsk(NE) can be found from the S–N curve for reinforcement.5(2) the range of vertical shear (clause 6.5.5(1)P is complex when tension stiffening is allowed for. f could then under-estimate the stress ranges in steel flanges. Where the words ‘or Clause 6. Reinforcement For reinforcement. 0. on which the stress σs.8.5 N/mm for N* = 10 . which is discussed using Fig.4 gives the verification procedure. Stress ranges Clause 6. On initial cracking.8 of EN 1992-1-1.8.3(2) only MEd. Its recommended value N* for straight bars is 106.8.8. 6. min.5.8.3(2) refers to EN 1992-1-1.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 For stresses in structural steel. Where a spectrum 122 . from Table 6.8.4(2) and 6.15 (D6. This should not be confused with the corresponding value for structural steel in EN 1993-1-9.8.8.1(4)).4(1) Clause 6.5.5.8. clause 6. so this clause is not discussed here. f lies. σs.4(1) permits the use of the approximation to the effects of tension stiffening that is used for other limit states.4(3) give simplified rules for calculating stresses.1 6.2(1)).8. This has the same axes. Where a range ∆σE(NE) has been determined. Lines OBE are not shown in Fig.8. clause 6.8.6. and the verification is ∆σE(NE) £ ∆σRsk(NE)/1.8.5).6.39) with ∆σRsk = 162. Clause 6.5. This gives line OE.8.5.8.8.7) for concrete subjected to a damage equivalent stress range. its equation (6. f for these two cases are shown.8.5. would lie on line AOD. f causes tension in the slab.5.5(1)P The interpretation of clause 6.4 defines the unloading route from point J as JOA.3(2) apply.8. and also shows a minimum bending moment that causes compression in the slab.3(1) repeats.5. At bending moment MEd. f causing tension and compression. Using the γ values recommended in EN 1992-1-1.26 because clause 7. for MEd.93 so clause 6.8. which provides (in clause 6. an amount ∆σs that is independent of σs. f’ in clause 6. where clause 6.15 2 6 (D6. 6. The fatigue stress ranges ∆σs. It consists of adding to the maximum tensile stress in the ‘fully cracked’ section.8.6. Points K and L give two examples.5(2)). 0 thus found is increased by ∆σs.1(4). For a building.8.8. the stress σs jumps from B to point E. 0 and of the limit state.5.5.5. Structural steel Clause 6. Concrete Clause 6. that assumes concrete to be effective.8.6.5.5. min.2(1) For concrete. max.71) for verification of reinforcement becomes ∆σE.1(4) neglected (clause 6.2. with Clause 6.4(2) Clauses 6. A calculated value for the stress σs in reinforcement.8. Calculation of σs using section property I2 gives line OC.5. equ(N*) £ ∆σRsk(N*)/1. in the slab. Shear connection Clause 6.3(1) Clause 6. as shown by line HJ.4N. 2 × 106. For moments exceeding Mcr. min.8.5.4(3) reference to Fig. which is used also for shear connectors (clause 6. the stress σs follows route EFG on first loading.26. respectively.

3(3)). No value has been found in EN 1993-1-1 or EN 1993-1-9. when the flange is in tension. The load cycle that gives the maximum value of ∆σE.6. min. copied from equation (6.6. The first of expressions (6.1 will be found in other guides in this Clause 6. 6. 0 D 0 A L Mcr B MEd. f J Dss C H Dss.8. clause 6.7.8.8.2(1) value of γMf. a property of the spectrum and the exponent m (clause 6.8. f Fig.2(2) covers interaction between the fatigue failures of a stud and of the steel Clause 6.41) Comment on the methods referred to from clause 6. f MEd. the maximum and minimum stresses.8.8.8. It is necessary to calculate the longitudinal stress range in the steel flange that coexists with the stress range for the connectors.55). for which m = 8.4(1).56).41.0 (clause 6. f F K ss. The linear interaction condition is given in expression (6. EN 1990 refers to the other Eurocodes.2 Palmgren–Miner rule. The recommended value in EN 1992-1-1. rarely Clause 6. in general.7.8. f M MEd. is 1.7. Clause 6. the damage equivalent factor λv used in clause 6. are modified by the damage equivalent factor λ. from clause 8(1) of EN 1993-1-9.1(3)).8.7. Then. be that which gives the maximum value of ∆τE. (∆τE)8NE = (∆τE.1(3) occurs in buildings.CHAPTER 6. Clause 9. as follows. f E ss. min. 2/∆τE = λv = (NE/NC)1/8 (D6. and the second is for the stud.57) is the verification for the flange.7. 2)8NC where NC = 2 × 106 cycles. min.2 on shear connection can be found using the Clause 6.8. clause 6.6. Hence. max. s is 1.8. Let the load cycle cause a shear stress range ∆τ in a stud connector.8.7. Where the design cyclic loading consists of a single load cycle repeated NE times.2(2) flange to which it is welded. 2 in a 6. Stress ranges in reinforcement in cracked regions of loading is specified.8.3(1) of EN 1993-2 recommends 1.6. For γFf. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES ss (tension) G ss. and is outside of the scope of this guide.8.2(1) introduces the partial factors. max.7.0 for bridges.0.1 series. ∆τE. Comment and guidance will be found in the relevant guides in this series. The need to combine global and local fatigue loading events (clause 6. as discussed above for reinforcement. For shear connectors. 2 in the flange will not.2(1)). Fatigue assessment based on nominal stress ranges 123 . The recommended Clause 6.

For a 25 year design life. The axle spacing exceeds the beam spacing of 2. the reduction in static characteristic imposed load is 7 × 2. 6. Analysis for the load Qfat alone. 20 passages per hour for 5000 h/year gives NEd = 2. It thus appears that expression (6.5 m. 2 and ∆τE. Usually. Fatigue checks for a two-span beam.0 m wide and free from other variable loads. All other data are as before. The frequent combination of non-cyclic imposed load is specified. B = 263 kN m for loading qk. It is assumed that the imposed floor load of 7.2.7 × 17. B = 0. 2 may be influenced by whether the concrete is cracked. it is best to check first the conditions in expression (6. and of the shear connection near the cyclic load are checked.7. 6. (a) Variable static and cyclic loads. whether the ‘cracked’ or the ‘uncracked’ model is the more adverse. applied at point D in Fig. From Table 6.5 gives MEd. 0–35–0 kN. shrinkage 124 .57).42(a).7 × (263 – 31) = 162 kN m Table 6.42(b). In comparison with Example 6.6 + 23 84 12 0. or not. (c) Design action effects.7. gave the results in Fig. because the first is caused by flexure and the second by shear. ψ1qk = 0.0. point B in Figs 6. Those in rows 2 and 4 are unchanged.0 10. In practice. 6.23 and 6. with 15% of each span cracked. for these.28. so previous global analyses for the characteristic combination can be used. both ∆σE. for which ψ1 = 0. one or both of the left-hand sides is so far below 1. Also. The resistance to fatigue of the reinforcement at the internal support.56) is needed.0 that no check to expression (6. on a fixed path that is 2. The partial factor γFf is taken as 1. It travels at right angles to beam ABC.5 = 12. so each passage can be represented by two cycles of point load.0 Fig. These led to the bending moments MEk at support B given in the four rows of Table 7. min.1 is partly replaced by a cyclic load.5 × 2 = 35 kN. and MEk. giving MEk.25 kN/m. It should be obvious.56) may have to be checked four times. acting on span AB and on 10 m only of span BC.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 shear connector. qk = 17.7qk A (a) B D Qfat = 35 kN C (b) 120 10.5 kN/m. cyclic load. Example 6.42. the same as the additional axle load.0 kN/m2 for the two-span beam in Examples 6. Therefore.6 2. with 31 kN m at support B.7 and 7. (b) Design action effects.12: fatigue in reinforcement and shear connection Loading and global analysis The cyclic load is a four-wheeled vehicle with two characteristic axle loads of 35 kN each.5 × 106 cycles of each point load.2.0 (c) 20. f = 18 + 162 + 120 = 300 kN m 31 35 12 4 11 6 2.

41).25 × 1025 Verification for shear connection near point D Vertical shear is higher on the left of point D in Fig. than on the right. σs. the cumulative damage check. max. for reinforcement. 0 (N/mm2) 11 98 73 19 201 From Fig.25 – – MEk (kN m) 18 162 120 31 331 10–6Ws. the allowance for tension stiffening is ∆σs = 52 N/mm2. 6. f = 300 + 31 = 331 kN m Verification for reinforcement at cross-section B From equation (D7. 6. f = 201 + 52 = 253 N/mm2 From Fig.65 1.5 N/mm2 By analogy with equation (D6. cr (mm3) 1. would be 2.65 1. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES Table 6.65 σs. the stress range for the lighter axle would be a little higher than 24 × 30/35 = 20. max. equ = 29 N/mm2 Using equation (D6.7) Shrinkage Cyclic load Totals n 20.65 1. 6.8.6 × 1018 £ 2. min.40). MEd.15)9 × 106 which is 8. for γMf = 1.41 would be steeper. Assuming this stress range to be 21 N/mm2.CHAPTER 6. 125 . Stresses in longitudinal reinforcement at support B Action Permanent. f = 253 × 300/331 = 229 N/mm2 so ∆σs.15. the damage equivalent stress range for NEd = 5 × 106 cycles of stress range 24 N/mm2 is given by 249 × 5 × 106 = (∆σE.41.42(b).5. 6. From Fig. σs.4 of EN 1992-1-1. From σs. ∆VEd.5). m = 9 for NE > 106 N* = 106 ∆σRsk(N*) = 162. static (ψ1 = 0. composite Variable.2 20. 0 given in Table 6. f = 253 – 229 = 24 N/mm2 From clause 6.2 Load (kN/m) 1.5.5/1. equ)9 × 106 whence ∆σE.42(b). f = 23 kN for each axle load.6 N/mm2.7 20. 6.42.5/1. 29 £ 162. say 35 and 30 kN.2 28.2 12. If the axle loads had been unequal.15 so the reinforcement is verified.5 × 106 × (249 + 219) £ (162. because its line OJ in Fig.

75PRd. Hence. the shear flow from the non-cyclic variable action increases by 19 from 44.52) = 30.8.5 kN. ∆τc = 90 × (1.1(3) limits the shear per connector under the characteristic combination to 0.8 10.50 which is below the limit 0.0 kN from the secondary effect of shrinkage.0 59.4 43.2 kN/m.2 N/mm2 As γMf. The range of shear stress is ∆τE = 43 200/(5π × 9.8.6. so the new total is 110 + 19 = 129 kN/m.2 110 The maximum vertical shear at this point.3(4). Fatigue of shear connectors near cross-section D Action Permanent. is 59. The resulting maximum longitudinal shear flow. d = 60 N/mm2 so the shear connection is verified. is 110 kN/m.8. of which the cyclic part is 43. ∆τc.41).0 44.2) = 0.7) Shrinkage Cyclic load Totals 10–6Iy (mm4) 828 828 741 828 10–3Ac/n (mm2) 9.8.42(c).8/2.90 6. ∆τE.1(3).30).5 VEdAcz/nIy (kN/m) 5. including 10.75 in clause 6.0 23. is 5 studs/m.2 kN/stud. PEk/PRd = 129/(5 × 51.5[5 × 106/(2 × 106)]1/8 = 34.6. 2 = 30. 126 . s = 1.7 23. From clause 6.7 17.7/0. Clause 6.90 9. composite Variable.90 z (mm) 157 157 185 157 VEd (kN) 2. For this combination.9 kN/m. static (ψ1 = 0.5 N/mm2 The concrete is in density class 1. Table 6. for the uncracked unreinforced composite section. The shear connection (see Fig. Fig.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Table 6.5.97 9. with PRd = 51.7 = 63.2)2 = 60 N/mm2 From equation (D6. 6.7 to 44.0. The shear forces VEd are found from the loads and values MEk in Table 6. 6.

1(1)P and 7. Some of these other. Clause 7. design checks must be simple. Serviceability is then checked.2 Clause 7. or in Eurocodes 1990. This gives criteria for placing a limit state within the ‘serviceability’ group. and it does not matter if they are conservative. For other elements. 4. The initial design of a structure is usually based on the requirements for ultimate limit states. more general provisions are briefly referred to here. General Section 7 of EN 1994-1-1 is limited to provisions on serviceability that are specific to composite structures and are not in Sections 1. 2. The drafting of the serviceability provisions of the EN Eurocodes is intended to give designers and clients greater freedom to take account of factors such as the intended use of a building and the nature of its finishes. The content of Section 7 was also influenced by the need to minimize calculations.4 of EN 1990. a longer but more accurate calculation may be justified. The consequences of unserviceability are less serious than those of reaching an ultimate limit state.1(1)P of EN 1990 as Ed £ Cd . but in others the client may prefer to spend more on a stiffer beam. 1991. durability. Some application rules therefore include alternative methods. which has the following clauses: • • • • General Stresses Deformations in buildings Cracking of concrete Clause 7. and its occurrence is less easily defined.3 Clause 7.4 7. 1992 or 1993. a beam with an imposed-load deflection of span/300 may be acceptable in some situations.1(2) Serviceability verification and criteria The requirement for a serviceability verification is given in clause 6. Results already obtained for ultimate limit states are scaled or re-used wherever possible.1 Clause 7.1(1)P Clause 7. or in other handbooks in this series. 5 (for global analysis) or 9 (for composite slabs).5. Experienced designers know that many structural elements satisfy serviceability criteria by wide margins. with reference to deformations (including vibration). For these.CHAPTER 7 Serviceability limit states This chapter corresponds to Section 7 of EN 1994-1-1. which are specific and leave little to the judgement of the designer. Clauses 7.1. For example. Further comments on them are in other chapters of this book.1(2) refer to clause 3. and the functioning of the structure.

3.2. 7. A simple and usually conservative method is to assume that the whole of the steel frame is erected first.5.2. other than warnings in clause 7.2. elastic global analysis to Section 5 is sufficient (clause 7. No serviceability limit state of ‘excessive slip of shear connection’ has been defined. Generally. from here on. with value 1. but the effect of slip is recognized in clause 7. For buildings. but more realistic multi-stage analyses may be needed for a high-rise structure and for long-span beams. Where unpropped construction is used and beams are not designed as simply supported. which may be applicable for buildings that have prestressing or fatigue loading. For propped construction.0 in EN 1994-1-1. Then.2 of EN 1992-1-1. and should be specified for each project and agreed with the client.4. frequent.4(1) of EN 1990. These may be defined in National Annexes.4. No stress limits for buildings are given in the Eurocodes for concrete and steel structures. respectively. all of the concrete for the composite members is cast at once. Clause A1. from clause A1.4. reversible or a consequence of long-term effects.1(1) 128 . clause 7. irreversible.0. In a continuous beam or a frame.4 of EN 1990 says that possible sources of vibration and relevant aspects of vibration behaviour should be considered for each project and agreed with the client and/or the relevant authority. Stresses Clause 7. The same provision. ‘unless differently specified’ in another Eurocode.3.supported are built unpropped. Clause A1. for serviceability limit states that are. in clause 6. Deflections Global analysis Clause 7.1(4) on deflection of beams. Further guidance may be found in the relevant Eurocode Part 2 (bridges) and in specialized literature.0.2. No serviceability criteria are specified for composite columns. with recommended stress limits in notes. Comments on limits to crack width are given under clause 7. is given for partial safety factors for properties of materials. to composite frames. especially where beams designed as simpl.5.1(1). and may govern design. it is assumed that design of shear connection for ultimate limit states ensures satisfactory performance in service.3. the relevant combination is ‘normally’ the characteristic. so.1 of EN 1990.3.3 of EN 1990.2 of EN 1990 refers to serviceability criteria relevant for buildings.6. The quasi-permanent combination is also relevant for the appearance of the structure. in some places. from clause 6.2.3.2 Excessive stress is not itself a serviceability limit state. From clause 6. but composite slabs can be an exception.1(2)).3. these combinations are used with the partial safety factor 1. this chapter is referring to composite beams or. and Cd is the limiting design value of the ‘relevant’ criterion. though stress calculations to clause 7.1 are required for some verifications for deformation and cracking. For most buildings.2.8. 7.4. The ‘bridge’ parts of these Eurocodes include stress limits. props to beams should not be removed until all of the concrete that would then be stressed has reached a strength equivalent to grade C20/25.1 Clause 7.5. no checks on stresses are required. its whole weight being carried by the steelwork. 7. Relevant rules are given in clause 9. Then.2(4).1.2.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 where Ed is the design value of the effects of the specified actions and the ‘relevant’ combination. the deflection of a beam depends on how much of the structure is already composite when the slab for each span is cast. There are no departures from 1. Deformations in buildings Deflections are influenced by the method of construction. the analysis may be more complex than is revealed by the reference to EN 1993 in clause 7. or quasi-permanent combination.

αcr = 8.1(6) 129 .2. it may be possible to obtain some of the results needed for serviceability limit states (SLS) by simple scaling by the ratio of the relevant loads.5.4.3.3. the elastic critical load will be little altered.5 for propped construction and 0. If most of the load on columns is from suspended floors. ENV 1994-1-149 gave the following equation for the additional deflection due to partial interaction: δ = δc + α(δa – δc)(1 – η) (D7. η. suppose that for an unbraced frame at ULS. from clause 5.1(3) Clause 7.4 in clause 6.3(3) to 5. or to more than one. both δa and δc are calculated for the design loading for the composite member.1(4) refers to the additional deflection caused by slip at the interface between steel and concrete.4 £ η < 0.4. δa is the deflection of the steel beam acting alone. it will be removed after the member becomes composite.4. The method comes from a summary of pre-1975 research on this subject. based on the quasi-permanent combination.3 of EN 1990.3. Clause 5.1) where α = 0.3 for unpropped construction.2.95 Clause 7. Longitudinal slip Clause 7. Depending on circumstances. especially where construction is unpropped and/or the steel beam is pre-cambered.2(1).3. so that second-order global analysis was used. which conceal the sagging of a beam due to dead loading.3(5) also apply. and δc is the deflection for the composite beam with complete interaction.1. it may be necessary to set limits to any one of them.3.CHAPTER 7. and gives a higher limit. it must be decided whether they should be cambered to compensate for creep. Limits to deflection of beams The specification of a deflection limit for a long-span beam needs care. including the reference in clause 5. global analysis for serviceability differs little from that for an ultimate limit state. Reference should be made to the three components of deflection defined in clause A1. discussed below. and these loads for SLS are 60% of those for ULS. but not always in bridges.3.3.1(2) requires ‘appropriate corrections’ for cracking of concrete. Condition (b) relates to the minimum value of the degree of shear connection. given as 0.3(2) permits the use of the same distribution of beam stiffnesses at SLS as for ULS. which simplifies global analysis.2.1(7).2. and may need to allow for shrinkage. Clause 7.2.1(4) Cracking in global analysis Apart from the different loading.1(5) says that clause 5.4. and also on which of the three serviceability load combinations is being used for the limit state considered. As an example. SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES Where falsework or re-usable formwork is supported from the steel beam. This exceeds 10. The small locked-in stresses that result can usually be ignored in buildings.3(4) to a method given in Section 6 for the effect of cracking on the stiffness of composite columns.4. Other methods are also available.6. The relevant provisions in Section 7 are in clauses 7. αcr ª 8/0. Cracking reduces bending moments at internal supports to an extent that can be estimated by the method of clause Clause 7. continuous beams in buildings can often be assumed to be of uniform section within each span. Prediction of long-term values should take account of creep of concrete. This ratio will depend on the method of construction.3 applies.1(3).1.5. Where first-order elastic global analysis was used for ultimate limit states (ULS).94 which also gives results of relevant tests and parametric studies. but the details in paragraphs (4) to (7) apply only to ULS.4(1). Clause 5. so for SLS. For use where the design is such that 0. Its three conditions all apply.1(3) relates to the use of false ceilings. 0.4.4. and clause 7. Where precast floor units are used.1(6) and 7. Clauses 5. In the absence of cracking. so first-order analysis can be used.3. related to a defined load level.6 = 13.4.1(5) Clause 7.2.3. Redistribution of moments is permitted for most framed structures at SLS by clause 5.

Composite floor systems are lighter and have less inherent damping than their equivalents in reinforced concrete.2) Clause 7.3. or by an approximate method given in BS 5950-3-1. During their design. It may be the characteristic.4. Mh1 and Mh2. with steel beams in Class 1 or 2.2. but it causes additional deflection. so if temperature effects are relevant at ULS. on their loading and on the state of construction. on neglect of temperature effects.2.96 the load combination to be used for the second check depends on the functioning of the structure.1.2(7) refers to Section 7.1(7) Yielding of steel In continuous beams built unpropped. No values are given for either limiting frequencies or damping coefficients. For these.5(2). Welded mesh Clause 5.31 This consists of multiplying the deflection for the simplysupported span by the factor 1 – 0. Clause 7. 7. Local buckling This does not influence stiffnesses for elastic analysis except for Class 4 sections. clause 5.1(6) gives conditions for the inclusion of welded mesh in the effective section.3. neither ψ0 nor ψ1 is given as zero in clause A1. Clause 7. Using the new end moments.1 are then not satisfied.2 of EN 1990 (nor in the UK’s draft National Annex to BS EN 199096).3. and the method consists simply of reducing all ‘uncracked’ moments at internal supports by 40%. The two values given in the clause for factors f2 correspond to different checks. In more slender beams. The conditions for the use of curve A in Fig.1(6) refers to clause 2. with the load additional to that for the first check acting on the composite beam. within the rules for classification of sections. frequent or quasi-permanent combination. shrinkage deflections are significantly reduced by provision of continuity at supports. they should be included in all SLS combinations except quasi-permanent. (D7.2.3. the maximum deflection can be found either by elastic theory for the span. dynamic behaviour should be checked against the criteria in EN 1990 referred to from clause 7.2(1) Limits to vibration in buildings are material-independent. where clause 7. which gives a design rule.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 7. The first is for dead load only: wet concrete on a steel beam. 130 .3. with allowance for effects of cracking.2. of uncracked flexural stiffness EaI1. Shrinkage In principle.4. For each analysis. appropriate assumptions are needed for the adjacent spans. According to the UK’s draft National Annex to EN 1990.2(1).95 The maximum deflection of a given span normally occurs when no imposed load acts on adjacent spans.3. based on Stark and van Hove.1(6). and advise that the lowest natural frequency of vibration of the structure or member should be kept above a value to be agreed with the client and/or the relevant authority. it is possible that serviceability loading may cause yielding at internal supports. This is permitted for beams in buildings. which should be allowed for. shrinkage effects appear in all load combinations.1(8) 7.6(Mh1 + Mh2)/M0 where M0 is the maximum sagging moment in the beam when it is simply supported. Vibration Clause 7.1(8) enables effects of shrinkage on deflections of beams to be ignored for span/depth ratios up to 20.4.4 of EN 1990. For buildings.5. and vibration is in clause A1. The bending moments at internal supports are found by elastic analysis. For SLS. say. These are general. does not apply.3.2 in EN 1993-1-5. clause 5.3.1(7) provides a method. Temperature Clause 5. not in EN 1994.4.

97.3 and 0. 7. These are tedious.1(3) refers to the methods developed for composite members. Cracking of concrete In the early 1980s it was found44. Concrete in tension in a composite beam or slab for a building will usually be in exposure class XC3.1(1) Clause 7.1(2) Clause 7.g.1(1) give the surface crack-width limits required for design. should be agreed with the client. General The rules given in EN 1994-1-1 are based on an extensive and quite complex theory. Tables 4. for spaces with low or very low air humidity.1(1)) permits cracking of uncontrolled width in some circumstances. Tables 7. and does not take full account of the following differences between the behaviours of composite beams and reinforced concrete T-beams.3.1.4.4 mm.CHAPTER 7.4. The references to EN 1992-1-1 in clause 7.4. A note to clause 7. for all cross-sections that could be subjected to significant tension by imposed deformations (e.98 These sources refer to several criteria that are likely to be specific to the individual project. 7. additional to those used originally.4.4 mm. it had been found for reinforced concrete that the appropriate theoretical model for cracking caused by restraint of imposed deformation was different from that for cracking caused by applied loading.2.1N of EN 1992-1-1 recommend a limit of 0. The paper includes derivations of the equations given in clause 7. 0.4. and procedures for estimating the mean width and spacing of cracks. for example. for which the recommended limit is 0. Clause 7. Its methods are simple: Tables 7. the long-established British methods for control of crack width were unreliable for initial cracks.1(3) Uncontrolled cracking Clause 7.4. The limits are more severe for prestressed members. This rather long procedure is rarely needed.1(2) refers to ‘estimation’ of crack width.4. the steel member is attached to the concrete flange only by discrete connectors that are not effective until there is longitudinal slip.99 that for composite beams in hogging bending. which are easier to apply than the methods for reinforced concrete members. SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES More specific guidance can be found in EN 1991-1-1 and the extensive literature on this subject. supported by testing on hogging regions of composite beams. All these limits may be modified in a National Annex.99. whereas in reinforced concrete there is monolithic connection.2.4.3 of EN 1993-1-1 says that limits to vibration of floors may be specified in a National Annex. and so are not in EN 1994-1-1. using EN 1992-1-1.1(4) of EN 1992-1-1 (referred to from clause 7. The severe environment for a floor of a multistorey car park is discussed in Chapter 4.3 mm.2.1 and 7.4.1 and 7. The steel member in a composite beam does not shrink or creep and has much greater flexural stiffness than the reinforcement in a concrete beam. so a detailed account of the theory has recently been published in English. which are not discussed further. with a concrete top flange that is continuous over ‘simple’ beam-to-column 131 .2 are for ‘high-bond’ bars only. This has led to the presentation of design rules for control of cracking as two distinct procedures: • • for minimum reinforcement. which were wider than predicted.4.2(2)P of EN 1992-1-1. Clause 7. which cause higher stresses than in reinforced concrete. in clause 7.2 give maximum diameters and spacings of reinforcing bars for three design crack widths: 0.4. beams designed as simply supported.2.101 with comparisons with results of tests on composite beams. comments on their scope and underlying assumptions. Clause 7. with other aspects. by effects of shrinkage. Also.100 Much of the original literature is in German. because of restraint from the steel beam) for reinforcement to control cracking due to direct loading (clause 7.4. This means ribbed bars with properties as in clause 3.1 and 7. Before this.3). The use of reinforcement other than ribbed is outside the scope of the Eurocodes. however. and.

1. but not exceeding 400 mm. 200 mm 132 .4.1 gives σs. The only data needed when using Tables 7. for composite slabs. where h is the total depth of the slab. so all of the tensile force in the concrete just before cracking is transferred to the reinforcement. in clause 9. For a chosen bar diameter φ.1(4) and. including ribs of composite slabs.1) in clause 7. which cause curvature of the composite member.2). 200 mm 8 mm. This rule is for solid slabs.1(4) Cross-sectional area (mm2 per m width) 142 193 252 Maximum thickness of slab (mm) Unpropped. and rotate about a point that cannot be predicted. the minimum reinforcement required (for other reasons) by EN 1992-1-1 may be inadequate to prevent the fracture of small-diameter bars near internal supports.4 mm may be acceptable. such as carpeting. Minimum areas greater than those of EN 1992-1-1 are therefore specified in clause 7.8.4.4. Especially for beams supporting composite slabs. Slip of the shear connection also causes curvature and reduces the tensile force in the slab. of area As. σs is the stress immediately after initial cracking. crack widths exceeding 0. 7.1. where h is the overall thickness of the slab. It will be evident whether there should be one layer of reinforcement or two. It is assumed that the curvature of the steel beam does not change. With experience. the relevant thickness is that above the profiled steel sheeting.2% 71 96 126 Propped. and then.0 only where z0 < 1. which satisfies clause 7. as its position depends on tolerances and methods of erection of the steelwork. equation (7.1) are based on calibration work. The magnitude of these effects depends on the geometry of the uncracked composite section. Minimum reinforcement Clause 7. as given by equation (7.1(4) connections.102 These allow for the non-uniform stress distribution in the area Act of concrete assumed to crack.1 and 7.4. the design crack width and thickness of the slab. or the formation of very wide cracks. to clause 7. It may then be impossible to predict the widths of cracks.4. If the slab were in uniform tension. Even so. because it is less than 1. the depth of the ‘uncracked’ neutral axis below the bottom of the slab (excluding ribs) normally exceeds about 70% of the slab thickness.1(5): spacing not exceeding 2h (and £ 350 mm) in both directions. σs.2hc.2(3). 0. It is not intended for slabs formed with profiled steel sheeting. ‘Non-uniform self-equilibrating stresses’ arise from primary shrinkage and temperature effects. For design. If this is too high or low. hc will be known.2.2(1) Table 7.2(1) would be Asσs = Act fct.4% – 48 63 Bar size and spacing 6 mm. For composite slabs. Use of steel fabric as minimum reinforcement. are given in Table 7. 200 mm 7 mm. φ is changed. kc = 1. The maximum spacing of flexural reinforcement permitted by clause 9. Two layers will often consist of bars of the same size and spacing. Table 7. according to these rules.3. and equation (7.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Clause 7. eff The three correction factors in equation (7.1) gives the bar spacing.2 are the tensile stresses in the reinforcement. Where the environment is dry and the concrete surface is concealed by a flexible finish. calculation of kc can often be omitted. The maximum thicknesses of slab that can be reinforced by one layer of standard welded fabric.4. for which a more appropriate rule is that given in clause 9.2. These are flexible in bending. For minimum reinforcement.1(3) of EN 1992-1-1 is 3h.4.1(2).1. 0.

0 N/mm2 A typical relationship between slab thickness hc.2(1) is not intended for the control of early thermal cracking. if the temperature rise caused by the heat of hydration is excessive. If there is good reason to assume a value for fct. The difference between 2.9 N/mm2 – the value used as the basis for the optional correction given in clause 7. from Table 7.3).3 mm and fct.1. eff such that the correction is not negligible.1.1 can be used for slabs with one layer of bars by halving the slab thickness. as curves of bar spacing for four slab thicknesses. to assume a very low value for fct. is proportional to φ2/s. so the product hcs is known. The method of clause 7. This increases with bar diameter.1 gives φ2σs. from equation (D7. This is because their greater surface area provides more bond strength. it is best used by assuming a standard bar diameter φ. The flanges of composite beams are usually too thin for this to occur. for wk = 0. so the use of smaller bars reduces the weight of minimum reinforcement. with kc = 1 and fct.0 is obviously negligible.72 × 3bhc/σs Hence.727φ2σs (D7.1) then gives. Table 7. eff = 3.CHAPTER 7. hc s = 0.1.0 N/mm2.4.2(2) 133 .4. It would not be correct. Figure 7. Bar diameter and spacing for minimum reinforcement in two equal layers.4.9 and 3. Equation (7. (πφ2/4)(2b/s) = 0. calculating φ*. per unit area of slab. It is for two similar layers of bars.3) For each bar diameter and a given crack width. SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES hc = 100 mm 150 s (mm) 400 200 300 300 200 100 0 5 6 8 10 12 16 20 f (mm) Fig. which can occur in concrete a few days old. Clause 7. for a slab of breadth b. 7. 7. which is proportional to σs–1. The weight of minimum reinforcement. The shape of the curves results partly from the use of rounded values of σs in Table 7. eff = 3. bar spacing s and bar diameter φ is shown in Fig.1. for wk = 0.4. This is plotted in Fig. The optional correction to minimum reinforcement given in clause 7. and then finding σs by interpolation in Table 7. was probably rounded from the mean 28 day tensile strength of grade C30/37 concrete.2(2) is negligible here. 3 N/mm2. therefore.3 mm. and has not been made.1. which can of course also be read as slab thicknesses for four bar spacings. eff. 7.2(2). The suggested value. given in EN 1992-1-1 as 2.1.

4. At each cross-section. for a given tensile strain at the level of the reinforcement.3(2) and of EN 1994-1-2. for fire resistance. 134 .3 or 0. It was thought that. Control of cracking due to direct loading Clause 7.4. and the strain in the concrete is the free shrinkage strain εcs. the strain in both the steel and the concrete is εs1.4. Detailing of this reinforcement is usually determined by the requirements of clause 5. 7. the external tensile force N causes strain εs2 = N/AsEa in the bar. The upper part of Fig. which is negative. within which there is transfer of shear between the bar and the concrete.4. allowing for the effects of cracking. so the stresses σs.2(6) gives a minimum value of As/Act for encasement of the type shown in Fig. The preceding comments on global analysis for deformations apply also to this analysis for bending moments in regions with concrete in tension. but it is placed last in clause 7.4.2(6) Reinforcement for encasement of a steel web Clause 7.1. so that allowing for the former reduced the latter. There is a transmission length Le each side of the crack. 0 (clause 7. so the new bending moments for the composite members can be found by scaling values found for ultimate loadings.4. The bending moments will then be much less than for the ultimate limit state.3(3)) can be found. Except for storage areas. the values of factors ψ2 for floor loads in buildings are typically 0. At one time. especially for cross-sections in Class 1 or 2 in beams built unpropped. these effects were not well understood. Strain distributions near a crack in a reinforced concrete tension member Clause 7.3(2) specifies elastic global analysis to Section 5. Clause 7.4.3(3) Tension stiffening A correction for tension stiffening is now required. the area of reinforcement will be already known: that required for ultimate loading or the specified minimum. Paragraph (4) on loading should come next.3(2) 7. if greater. and the stress in the concrete is fractionally below its tensile strength.2.2 shows a single crack in a concrete member with a central reinforcing bar.6. The true behaviour is more complex.4. Clause 7.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 N N Tensile strain es2 e s( x ) esm es1 ecm 0 e c( x ) x ecs Le Le Fig. the total extension must be the extension of the concrete plus the width of the cracks.5.3.3 because of the drafting rule that ‘general’ paragraphs precede those ‘for buildings’. Outside this length. as shown. The maximum bar size is not specified. It specifies the quasi-permanent combination. 6. There is no need to reduce the extent of the cracked regions below that assumed for global analysis. 7. At the crack.

7.1). Influence of profiled sheeting on the control of cracking The only references to profiled steel sheeting in clause 7. but no research on this subject is known to the authors. is greater than this. When the stress σs at a crack has been found. the strain is the cracking strain of the concrete. and is compatible with the mean longitudinal strain in the reinforcement. not to the strain εsm that is compatible with the curvature. for the thicker composite slabs General comments on clause 7. the design loading for checking cracking is usually much less than that for the ultimate limit state.2 are based on stress. so a correction to the strain is needed. Only one of these is needed. For the composite section.2(1). it would be reasonable to use the lower value.1(4). the definition of ‘effective tension area’ in clause 7.CHAPTER 7. For design.4. If the depth of the concrete above the top of the sheeting. may be assumed to influence cracking over a depth 2.4.0. and Aa and Ia are standard properties of the steel section. but not from other actions. not the fully cracked stiffness. so that the quantity of reinforcement provided for resistance to load should be sufficient to control 135 . 0 is calculated using the ‘fully cracked’ stiffness. This recognizes the ability of the sheeting to control cracking in the lower half of the slab. there is at present no evidence that it contributes to the control of transverse cracks at the top surface of the slab where the sheeting spans parallel to the beam. The effects of the use of profiled sheeting for a slab that forms the top flange of a continuous composite beam are as follows: • • • there is no need for control of crack widths at the lower surface of the slab where the sheeting spans in the transverse direction. is much greater than εsm. and has the effect of reducing the minimum amount of reinforcement required. the curves εs(x) and εc(x) give the strains in the two materials. A layer of reinforcement at depth c + φ/2 below the top surface of the slab. Midway between the cracks. A is needed to find I.1 and 7. and in the definition of hc in clause 7. The crack width corresponds to this higher strain.3.4. and Tables 7. and so relates to a curvature greater than the true curvature. εsm. at the crack. ‘… thickness … excluding any haunch or ribs’.2(2) does not apply. ‘… no account should be taken of any profiled steel sheeting’. The curvature of the steel beam is determined by the mean stiffness of the slab. when calculating As from equation (7. Where unpropped construction is used for a continuous beam. the minimum reinforcement required may exceed that provided in previous practice. The derivation of the correction101 takes account of crack spacings less than 2Le. hc. but less than the yield strain.1 and 7.4 In regions where tension in concrete may arise from shrinkage or temperature effects. in a region of constant bending moment such that the crack spacing is 2Le. the bond properties of reinforcement.2. and other factors omitted from this simplified outline. which is used in calculating σs. as the known area of reinforcement then gives the other.1 because the stress σs. αst may conservatively be taken as 1.4.3(3) as a correction to the stress σs. For simplicity. The section properties needed for the calculation of the correction ∆σs will usually be known. It is now assumed that the graph represents the typical behaviour of a reinforcing bar in a cracked concrete flange of a composite beam.5(c + φ/2) of the slab. it probably contributes to crack control. The result is independent of the modular ratio. where c is the cover. if crack widths are not to exceed 0. It is presented in clause 7. with mean strains εsm in the bar and εcm in the concrete. the maximum bar diameter or the maximum spacing are found from Tables 7. 0 because that is easily calculated. corresponding to a stress less than 30 N/mm2 in the bar. Its peak strain. The strain correction cannot be shown in Fig.4 are in clause 7. The correction of clause 7. because AI > Aa Ia.4 mm.4(2) of EN 1992-1-1 should be noted. SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES Within the length 2Le. 0.

96 The maximum stress in the steel beam occurs in the bottom flange at support B. B (mm4) 337 467 467 467 MEk. for characteristic loads per unit length Table 6.2 20. reference should be made to: • • • • Table 6. other than floor finishes. for bending-moment diagrams for design ultimate loadings.1: two-span beam (continued) – SLS Details of this beam are shown in Fig.75 1.2 28.3. Results for the characteristic combination with variable load on both spans and 15% of each span cracked are given in Table 7.23(c)) and at mid-span Table 6. The main use of clause 7. is assumed to act on the steel beam alone.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 cracking. Hogging bending moments at support B and stresses in the steel bottom flange.2 for all of the loading except shrinkage. the loading for checking deflections depends on the serviceability requirement. for the characteristic load combination Loading (1) Permanent (on steel beam) (2) Permanent (on composite beam) (3) Variable (4) Shrinkage w (kN/m) 5. For data and results required here.2. 6.3(2) of EN 1990.3.5 – Modular ratio – 20. but stresses in the steel beam need to be calculated. Where floors have brittle finishes or an adverse environment. If cracks are to be controlled to 0. However. Example 7.75 1. from a note to clause 6. which is used here.75 σa.3 is more likely to influence the reinforcement required.2.50 1. The permanent load.4. so.2(11). Yielding is irreversible. a check to clause 7.7). Table 7.4.1(7).2.28. excluding the effects of shrinkage. All of the design data and calculations for the ultimate limit state are given in Examples 6. the modular ratio is taken as 20. B (kN m) 104 18 263 120 10–6Wa.7 to 6. because effective control of crack width may not be possible. there are no limitations on stress. 6. the disparity between the design loadings for the two limit states is smaller. bot (mm3) 1. because it does not refer to lightweight-aggregate concrete.2(1). account should be taken of the resulting increase in deflections. for elastic properties of the cross-sections at the internal support (B in Fig.3 mm.7 10–6Iy. for bending moments at support B for uniform loading on both spans Fig. and cause a hogging bending moment at support B of 120 kN m (Example 6. 6. The secondary effects of shrinkage are significant in this beam. simple beamto-column joints should not be used. from clause 7.4. Stresses From clause 7.12.2.3. bot (N/mm2) 69 10 150 69 136 . because if yielding occurs under service loads.78 1. Following clause 5.1(8) does not permit shrinkage to be ignored for serviceability checks on this beam.5.2.23. Where propped construction is used. For beams in frames. Clause 7. the preceding comments apply where semi-rigid or rigid connections are used.3 is then to check that the spacing of the bars is not too great. it should be checked for the characteristic load combination.4.2 17.

on composite beam Imposed. 7. so the variable loading is 0.3. From Example 6. despite the high free shrinkage strain.1 that the deflection of the composite slab. The total deflection. This is relative to the supporting beams. if cast unpropped. but would not be negligible in a simply-supported span.1(4)(a) is satisfied.CHAPTER 7.7. The secondary reaction at B is 20 kN.3(a) is δ1. This ratio appears not to be excessive. the functioning of the floor may depend on its maximum deflection relative to the supporting columns.7 × 17. From the geometry of the circle. 7. for which ψ1 = 0. on steel beam Dead. is 15 mm for the frequent combination.5 = 12. SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES Table 7.42 × 1000 × (2 × 1149) = 33 mm The upwards displacement at E caused by the 20 kN reaction at B that moves point B¢ back to B was found to be 26 mm by elastic analysis of the model shown in Fig. Sagging deflection at point E caused by shrinkage The total bottom-flange compressive stress is σEk.9 27. bot.27.2 27. It is found in Example 9.3 mm at support B. the primary effect is uniform sagging curvature at radius R = 1149 m. E = 45.7 and Fig.2 20. are given in Table 7. on composite beam Primary shrinkage Secondary shrinkage Modular ratio – 20. Calculated deflections at this point. 7. 6. is span/390. The additional deflection caused by slip of the shear connection is ignored.4 (a) (b) E B 20 kN Fig.3.3 kN/m The following method was used for the shrinkage deflections. with 15% of each span assumed to be cracked.8 m from support A. 31 mm. a = 298 N/mm2 (= 0. as clause 7.3. Deflections The maximum deflection of span AB of the beam will occur at about 4. with deflection δ = 45. The frequent combination is used.2 1. the primary deflection at point E in Fig. The total shrinkage deflection is only 7 mm.3 mm 10 kN 45.3 A B' 5.3. so the maximum floor deflection is 137 .3(b). when variable load acts on span AB only.9 Deflection (mm) 9 1 14 33 –26 10. Deflections at 4. However.8 m from A (40% of the span). with 15% of each span cracked.84fy) so no allowance is needed for yielding. for the frequent combination Load Dead.8 A R B E 33 10 kN 26 mm 45.3 – 5.

5 m should be considered.4. Minimum reinforcement The relevant cross-section of the concrete flange is as shown in Fig.1(5) also sets a limit. As unpropped construction is used. some combination of using propped construction for the composite slabs and/or the beams. this increases to 37 + 16 = 53 mm or span/230. The extensive calculations for shrinkage lead to a net deflection of only 7 mm. from equation (5. min = 7 × 80 = 560 mm2/m One layer of 10 mm bars at 125 mm spacing provides 628 mm2/m.2(2) of EN 1992-1-1. of course. assuming uncracked unreinforced concrete. it is taken as 1. so. For this floor.4. From clause 4.3.2(1).1. except that effective widths up to 2.70% (D7. Class XC3 is appropriate for concrete ‘inside buildings with moderate humidity’. 100ρs = 100 × (355/235)(2. It may be difficult to show that sections 3 m from B are never ‘subjected to significant tension’ (clause 7. Control of crack width Clause 7.2(1)). and cambering the beams.3 becomes 12 mm. Calculations are therefore done for both effective widths. From clause 5.23(a).1). clause 5. the effective width is assumed to increase from 1. For the characteristic combination.1(3) is followed. A value is required for the strength of the concrete when cracks first occur.1(1) refers to exposure classes. 100As/Act = 100 × 0.1 on a composite slab. The method of clause 7. as clause 7.3 mm. Reducing the modular ratio for imposed loading to 10.5 m at sections more than 3 m from B. For floors with partitions. The latter are treated in Example 9.4.1 gives σs = 320 N/mm2. In the beam considered here. a note to clause 7. conservatively. so for a slab 80 mm thick above the sheeting the minimum reinforcement is As. For this concrete.4.0. 138 .32 N/mm2.0 N/mm2.675% However. they range from span/300 to span/500.1 makes little difference: the value 14 mm in Table 7.1(5) of EN 1992-1-1 gives the design crack width as 0. 6. so from clause 7.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 31 + 15 = 46 mm or span/260.2. This benefit would not occur.4) This limit governs.32/500) = 0.6 m at support B to 2. Then.0. because the secondary effect cancels out most of the primary effect.4. Table 7. fct. For this class. as a condition for the use of plastic resistance moments. It is found for both of these flange widths that z0 is such that kc > 1. and fsk = 500 N/mm2. From the definition of z0 in that clause. in a simply-supported span. flctm = 2. Assuming that 10 mm bars are used for the minimum reinforcement.1. The limiting deflections given in the UK’s draft National Annex to EN 199096 depend on the serviceability requirement. the relevant cracks are those near support B caused by hogging bending of the beam.5.8 × 3. from equation (7. Clause 7.9 × 1 × 0.2). n0 = 10. there is at first little load on the composite member.4. Hence. eff = 3. from equation (7.4 applies to reinforced concrete that forms part of a composite member.8) with kc = 1. and cracks along the beam caused by hogging bending of the composite slab that the beam supports.0/320 = 0.1(4) does not apply. will be necessary.

4. (D7.CHAPTER 7.3(4) permits the use of the quasi-permanent combination. From Table 7.32/(1.4.4 × 2. is now calculated. equation (7.4).0113) = 52 N/mm2 From equation (7. This gives ρs = 0. φs £ 16 mm.6 + 127 = 303 kN m The neutral axis for the cracked section is 313 mm below the top of the slab (Table 6. SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES Cracking due to direct loading Only the most critical cross-section. 0 = 303/1. from clause A1.5) 139 . αst = AI/Aa Ia = 11 350 × 467/(9880 × 337) = 1. B = 18 + 263 × 0. from clause 7.0113. so the section modulus for reinforcement at depth 30 mm is 10–6Ws = 467/(313 – 30) = 1.59 From equation (7. σs = 184 + 52 = 236 N/mm2 From Table 7.7.59 × 0.2.5). ∆σs = 0.2(1) of EN 1990.6. Using values obtained earlier. The use of 12 mm bars at 125 mm spacing at support B satisfies both conditions. at support B.65 = 184 N/mm2 The correction for tension stiffening.2. σs. From Table 7.65 mm3 Hence. for which the variable loading is ψ2qk.2. Finding the cross-sections of the beam at which this reinforcement can be reduced to the minimum found above may require consideration of the bending-moment envelopes both for ultimate loads and for the quasi-permanent combination.3(3). will be considered. the bending moment at B that stresses the reinforcement is ME. Clause 7.5).1. the bar spacing £ 200 mm. 12 mm bars at 125 mm spacing. with ψ2 = 0. qp. assuming that the reinforcement used in Example 6.12). will be satisfactory.

based on Clause 8.and H-sections. Scope Section 8 is based on relatively recent research on beam-to-column and beam-to-beam joints of the types used in steel and composite frames for buildings.4 8. Plate girders are not excluded.103 The worked examples and much of the comment in the present guide are limited to a single type of joint – the double-sided configuration shown in Fig. Commentary on the design of this joint will be found. The majority of the calculations needed for composite joints are specified there. Many types of joint are in use in steelwork.24 It is assumed that a user will be familiar with this code.4.CHAPTER 8 Composite joints in frames for buildings This chapter corresponds to Section 8 of EN 1994-1-1. which has the following clauses: • • • • Scope Analysis. especially its Sections 5 and 6. as appropriate.1 and clause 8. 8. 8. 8.1 and in Fig.1 – but with an end plate. it is expected that tables of resistances and stiffnesses of a wide range of steel and composite joints will become available.1(1) refers includes joints with reinforced concrete members. and explained in the relevant guide in this series.1(2). The application rules of EN 1994-1-1 are limited to composite joints in which reinforcement is in tension and the lower part of the steel section is in compression (Fig.1(1) Clause 8. However.1(1)).3 Clause 8.1(2) . There are no application rules for joints where the axes of the members connected do not intersect. both Section 8 and Annex A are essentially extensions to the Eurocode for joints between steel members. As stated in clause 8.1. as shown on the left of Fig. for example. These could occur.8. modelling and classification Design methods Resistance of components Clause 8. no application rules are given for such joints. The only steel members considered in detail are I. Before the Eurocodes come into regular use. and in Chapter 10 on Annex A. so its scope has been limited to ‘frames for buildings’.2 Clause 8. not a contact plate. and an uncased column. and is capable of application in a wider range of situations. 8.1 Clause 8. in a tower block with a concrete core and composite floors. in this chapter and its examples. The definition of composite joints to which clause 8. EN 1993-1-8. or do so at angles other than 90°. which may have concrete-encased webs. so that EN 1993-1-8 is around 130 pages long. but the basic approach is more general than the procedures prescribed in detail.

The stiffer the beam the less likely it is that the joint can be classified as rigid. or semi-rigid.1(1) Clause 8. 8. or both properties. as rigid. Joints are classified in Section 5 by stiffness.1(1) refers to Section 5 of EN 1993-1-8. with worked examples.1 in clause 5.1. nominally pinned. Experience will enable such checks to be omitted.2. Detailed guidance on the Eurocode methods for composite joints appeared in 1998. are relevant to the analysis. Many of them serve to show that a particular property of a joint does not govern its resistance. it provides much broader coverage than is possible here.2. it is divided by η.3(3).4 of EN 1993-1-8. to clause 5.2. or partial-strength. Its first edition39 refers to the draft codes as they were in 1998.3(3) Nominally pinned joint Semi-rigid joint A B C Lb Fig.2. using Fig. With over 200 pages.2. and so is referred to in clause 8.2. shown in Fig. ini. elastic. This enables the designer to determine whether the stiffness of the joint. 8. The reference in clause 8.4. was then prepared.2(1) Clause 8. 8.2. which covers the same subjects as clause 8.1 of EN 1993-1-8 defines the links between the three types of global analysis. Clause 8. so some differences.2(11). is reduced at high bending moments to allow for inelastic behaviour. Account could also be taken of cracked and uncracked lengths within the beam Clause 8. between 3.2(b). sagging or hogging). and the types of models used for joints. as well as for bar diameter. The initial elastic stiffness. The symbol φ is used for rotation. 8. a representative value of modular ratio.2(1) provides a further value.2. Sj. may be used. normally taken as the beam. Table 5.2.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 EN 1993 and EN 1994.1 and in Fig.2 of EN 1993-1-8 for various types of steel joint. Its initial stiffness is to be compared with that of the connected beam.2(1). mainly in symbols. Sj. Model for a two-span beam in a frame 142 . will be found between it and the published EN Eurocodes. are tabulated in clause 5. Analysis. 5. in the context of design to British codes. This is bending moment per unit rotation.104 An explanation of the provisions and approximations in the Eurocodes. and elastic–plastic. mainly by those who drafted the codes. in clause 8. nominally pinned. rigid plastic.2. These apply where the joint is composite.1. its resistance. This is unlikely in a steelwork joint. A more precise calculation of beam stiffness is permitted by the use of ‘may’ in clause 8. 8. The only modification.3(2). This applies also to composite joints.3(3) to neglect of cracking and creep applies only to the classification of the joint according to stiffness.2.0 and 3.2. The extensive calculations given here will rarely be needed. for contact-plate joints.3(2) Clause 8.5. as shown on the right of Fig. The classification of a composite joint may depend on the direction of the bending moment (e. concerns the rotational stiffness of a joint. values of which. This classification relates the property of the joint (stiffness or resistance) to that of the connected member.2. For example.g. For global analysis. including modelling and classification Clause 8.4. and by strength as full-strength.

Outline of modelling of joints for global analysis In global analysis. In comparison with full-strength rigid joints. do not govern. such as fracture of bolts. 8. ini. Ed 2Mj. The stiffness class is determined by the ratio of the initial slope.2(a)). nominally pinned joints are represented by pins. caused by tension from a single row of bolts extension of bolts. in which all elements except springs and pins are rigid. ini ≥ 8EIb/Lb (1) Rigid (2) Semi-rigid (3) Sj. Rd Mj. 8. Each spring has a finite strength. as follows: k1 k2 k3 k4 k5 k10 shear in column web compression of column web extension of column web bending of column flange. as shown. is the slope of the moment–rotation relationship for the joint (Fig.2. Sj. COMPOSITE JOINTS IN FRAMES FOR BUILDINGS Mj (1) Sj. and semi-rigid joints by rotational springs. r Ksc/Es slip of shear connection. but not in EN 1993-1-8.4. Those for an end-plate joint with a single row of bolts in tension. governed by yield or buckling of the steel. to reduce bending moments in the columns. represented by elastic springs.1 for a two-span beam of uniform depth. between beams of equal depth are shown in Fig. Joints to external columns are usually designed as nominally pinned. The use of partial-strength semi-rigid joints at point B. but the additional calculation would not normally be worthwhile. are: extension of reinforcement (denoted k13 by ECCS TC1139) ks.1 and 10. 8.2. supported by three columns in a braced frame. the advantages are: The stiffness of a rotational spring. ini £ 0. has advantages in design: • • • • • • possible reduction in the section sizes for beams reduction in the deflection of beams reduction in crack widths near support B. Sj.5EIb/Lb (2) tan–1 Sj. 143 . ini/m) 0 fCd f (b) Fig. The initial stiffness of a joint is assembled from the stiffnesses of its components. Moment–rotation relationships for joints in accordance with clause 5.1.3. for a single row of bolts. The notation for the spring stiffnesses ki is as in EN 1993-1-8 and in Examples 8.CHAPTER 8. 8.3. rather than nominally pinned joints. Stiffnesses in EN 1994-1-1. ini (3) Nominal pin 0 f (a) Mj Mj. caused by tension from a single row of bolts bending of end plate. as shown in Fig. The design method ensures that non-ductile modes. beams less susceptible to lateral–torsional buckling simpler construction and significant reduction in cost lower bending moments in columns. to the stiffness EaIb/Lb of the beam adjacent to the joint. Rd/3 tan–1 Sj (Sj = Sj.

rotational stiffness and rotation capacity of complete joints. A composite joint has these additional components: • • • longitudinal slab reinforcement in tension concrete encasement.3. where present.3.2(1) In addition. so this aspect of design is fully covered by EN 1993-1-8 (clause 8. 8. if used (not covered in EN 1993-1-8).1. their strengths and their elastic stiffnesses. The resistance can be increased by strengthening the weakest link. All the properties of components given in. or cross-referenced from. for example. 1 π MEd. Its deformation is resisted by the spring of stiffness k1. None of the additional components listed above influences resistance to vertical shear. Depending on the out-of-balance moment |MEd.1(1) refers to Section 6 of EN 1993-1-8. 1 k3 k4. 5 and 10.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 For the tension region. Where the beams are of unequal depth. Design methods Clause 8.1(3) Clause 8. account is taken of the slip of shear connection.1(2). This resistance is compared with the compressive resistance of spring 2. this is the area ABCD in Fig.3). or MEd.3. Clause 8. It defines the ‘basic components’ of a steelwork joint. EN 1994-1-1 satisfy the condition of clause 8.3. by modifying the stiffness of the reinforcement (Fig.2(1)). the weakest of the springs numbered 3. 8. and of the tension reinforcement. which is 40 pages long. by the addition of column-web stiffeners. r MEd. is found.3. 2 (Fig. 2 A B Ksc/Es MEd.1(2) Clause 8. 8. of the column web steel contact plates. The application of clause 8. the column web panel may govern the resistance of the joint. For beams of equal depth. 10 k1 D k2 C Fig. 4. Model for an internal beam-to-column joint 144 .1(1) Clause 8.3). rotation at the joint is increased by shearing deformation of the column web. ks. It is shown how these are assembled to obtain the resistances.3. 5. 8. 1 – MEd.3.1 and 10.3.3.3.3.1(3) to reinforcing bars is illustrated in Examples 8. 2|. The product of the lower of these resistances and the effective lever arm gives the plastic bending resistance of the joint. 8.

3. The model used in clause 8. So-called ‘simple’ joints have been widely used in composite structures. referred to in clause 8.2. for example.3.4.2).2 of EN 1993-1-8. Rd /3 < Mj. its bolts and a column flange. It means the set of components that connect a member to another member. The effective width of concrete flange in tension is the same at a joint as for the adjacent beam (clause 8.4. which is of thickness bc – tw (column width less web thickness). The reference to shear connection in clause 8. clause A. 8.1) Clause 8. Analytical prediction is still difficult.4(2) 8.4. Let Sj. The concrete strut ABDEFG has width 0. an end plate.3(2).1. the lever arm between the resultant horizontal forces from the beam.1(6) of EN 1993-1-8 to define the shape of the moment-rotation curve for a joint at bending moments Mj. For 2Mj. Ed /Mj. clause 8.8 of EN 1993-1-8.1(3) and Example 8. 8.3(1).4).2. is used in clause 6.3. The use of Annex A (informative) for finding rotational stiffnesses satisfies clause 8. ini /µ (Fig.5Mj. the stiffness is Sj = Sj.4.1(2) 145 . Resistance of components This clause supplements clause 6. Thus.4. Further guidance is given by ECCS TC11.3(2) This clause gives the value for ψ for a type of joint not included in Table 6.4.4.4.5. COMPOSITE JOINTS IN FRAMES FOR BUILDINGS Composite joints in framed structures for buildings are almost always in regions of hogging bending. for example. Ed £ Mj.2(1) and 8. Longitudinal bars above the beam should pass either side of the column.2(b)).39 Clause 8.1. the word ‘connection’ appears only in clause 8. Clauses 8.1(1)). to clauses 6.3.2 and Table A.2) (D8.2. The experience referred to in clause 8.4.3. Where the compressive force relied on in design exceeds the resistance of the steel bottom flange.4. 8.1(2) is illustrated in Fig. Some of them will be found to qualify as ‘partial-strength’ when Eurocode methods are used. This figure shows an elevation of the concrete encasement of width h – 2tf (column depth less flange thicknesses) and depth z.2. Clause 8. Rd /3. where µ = (1.3.3(2) and 8.8(h – 2tf)cos θ (bc – tw) (8. by being looped round it.3(1) permit the same 45° spread of force in a contact plate as used in EN 1993-1-8 for an end plate.2. 8.3.3. The force is assumed in EN 1993-1-8 to spread at tan–1 2. ini be the stiffness at low bending moments.4. Rd.105 There are many relevant parameters.3(1) Clause 8.1(2). The coefficient ψ.1(4) Clause 8.3.2) Clause 8.2. φCd in Fig. and is illustrated in Example 10.2.4(2) is then available.2.5 (68°) through the flange and root radius of the column. A shear force V is transferred through the encasement.8(h – 2tf)cos θ.1(1) Clause 8. a ‘connection’ is part of a ‘joint’.2. where tan θ = (h – 2tf)/z. 8.2(b).3(1) Clause 8. for which full shear connection is normally required.2(2) reminds the user that no provisions are given for composite joints in regions with partial shear connection.4. so its area is Ac = 0. This applies also at internal columns where there is a change in the tension in the bars (Fig.1.4. Ed that exceed 2Mj. as follows. In EN 1994-1-1. and there are as yet no design rules sufficiently well established to be included in EN 1994-1-1. It is rarely necessary in design to calculate either the available rotation capacity or the rotation required of a composite joint.3. Rd)ψ (D8. The table is applicable to other types of composite joint.CHAPTER 8.3(1).1(4) applies at an external column with a partial.4. The tensile force in the bars must be transferred to the column. The rotation capacity of composite joints. the length of the contact plate should allow for this (Fig.or full-strength joint.2.4.2(1) Clause 8.4. has been extensively researched.2(2) Clause 8.2.

212 scom. b 1. c. Model for resistance to compression of the concrete encasement to a column web 146 . Strut model for the shear resistance of the concrete encasement to a column web r tp Column Beam kwc. c 0 0. Detail of a contact plate between a beam bottom flange and a column h – 2 tf 0. c 2. c 45˚ tf.4(h – 2tf) A q q D B V z G 0. 8.8(h – 2tf)cos q C V F E NEd Fig.6.4.5. Ed /fcd (a) (b) Fig.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Beam Column 45˚ 68˚ Contact plate Fig. 8.0 teff.3 68˚ End plate tf. 8.

4.6(a). fy = 275 N/mm2. materials and loadings concerns the reinforcement in the slab. Its other properties are as follows: HEB 240 cross-section. referred to above.85 kwc.1(3). giving the force C in Fig. For simplicity. c.7). Its value cannot be found at this stage. C sin θ = V. 10–6Iz = 39. c fcd.1(3) NEd ≥ 0.5:1 dispersion. Longitudinal reinforcement at support B These partial-strength joints need rotation capacity.6 mm4. as ‘clause J.4. net area at root of thread As.CHAPTER 8. Aa = 10 600 mm2.2. 8. column EBF will be treated as fixed at nodes E and F. Model for a two-span beam ABC. more detailed than those now given in Section 8 and Annex A of EN 1994-1-1.6(b). fyb = 640 N/mm2.1) to (8.23–6. For an end-plate joint to a column flange.1.3) in clause 8. which also gives dimensions of the column section. For horizontal equilibrium at B and F. to provide the plastic behaviour required. and 8 mm welds to the web.1 on geometry. They are attached to the beam by 10 mm fillet welds to the flanges.4. The only other change from the data used in Examples 6. 10–6Iy = 112. 8. which ranges from 0. c.8.7 and 7.4. The contribution of concrete encasement to the resistance of a column web to horizontal Clause 8. as shown in Fig. with the 2. and relatively thin. fy = 355 N/mm2. They are each attached to the column by four Grade 8. The horizontal compressive strength of the concrete is 0. is shown in Fig.4.55 for zero axial compression to 1.4. COMPOSITE JOINTS IN FRAMES FOR BUILDINGS Its compressive strength is 0. for example.1.4.8 M20 bolts with properties: fub = 800 N/mm2.23 mm4. The shear strength of concrete is increased by compression. where kwc.4. This is allowed for by the factor ν in clause 8.1 for Clause 8. These are published by ECCS39 as a model annex J. The end plates are of mild steel. 8. c depends on the vertical compressive stress in the column. Ed. 8. 8. the depth of encasement assumed to resist compression. Example 8. Rd.5 m. with an internal column EBF 147 . These beams are attached to the column at B by the end-plate connections shown in Fig. in the work on beams AB and BC.55Npl. and are referred to. as before. σcom. b = 245 mm2 per bolt.7. It is now assumed that this beam is one of several similar beams in a multistorey braced frame (Fig. In development work that followed the publication of ENV 1994-1-1. but it is known to increase with both the diameter of the reinforcing bars in the slab E 3 A 3 B D C F 12 12 Fig.1 of ECCS TC11’.1: end-plate joints in a two-span beam in a braced frame Data The subject of Examples 6. These are equations (8. 8. teff.1 is a two-span beam ABC continuous over its central support (see Figs 6. The spans of the composite-slab floors are 2.5.4.7 and 7.28). a set of application rules for composite joints was prepared. 12 mm.85νfcd. Its joints with the external columns are nominal pins. extending through the root radius r. They provide useful guidance in this example.4.2 compression is given in clause 8.

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

240

200 A 160 60

25

m2 = 35.4 + 2

383 9.4 450

12

10 A

14.6

60

=

= 25 90

(a) Elevation

(b) Section A–A

30 16 dia.

100 21 240 10 130 270 800 17 100 mm 230

(c) Column section

(d) Slab reinforcement

Fig. 8.8. Details of the beam-to-column end-plate connections

and the area of reinforcement provided. However, the amount of top reinforcement should be limited, so that the whole of the compressive force across the joint can be resisted by the beam bottom flange and the unstiffened column web. Detailed guidance is given in Couchman and Way.104 For a steel beam of depth 450 mm in S355 steel, the recommended minimum areas are 3000 mm2 for bars with 5% elongation and 860 mm2 for bars with 10% elongation. The recommended maximum amount depends on the size of the column and the details of the bolts in tension, and is about 1200 mm2 for this example. The recommended bar diameters are 16 and 20 mm. For these reasons, the previous reinforcement (13 No. 12 mm bars, As = 1470 mm2) is replaced by six No. 16 mm hot-formed bars (minimum elongation 10%): As = 1206 mm2, fsk = 500 N/mm2.

Classification of the joints It is assumed initially that flexural failure of a joint will occur in a ductile manner, by yielding of the reinforcement in tension and the end-plate or column flange in bending;

148

CHAPTER 8. COMPOSITE JOINTS IN FRAMES FOR BUILDINGS

and that at bottom-flange level the compressive resistance of the column web will be sufficient. As the spans are equal, it is unlikely that shear of the column web will be critical. The joint is expected to be ‘partial-strength’. This can be checked by comparing the tension resistance of the top two bolts, from Table 3.4 of EN 1993-1-8, with the force to yield the beam top flange: FT, Rd, bolts = 2(k2 fub As/γM2) = 2 × 0.9 × 0.8 × 245/1.25 = 282 kN FRd, flange = bf tf fyd = 190 × 14.6 × 0.355 = 985 kN Thus, the resistance moment Mj, Rd for the joint will be much less than Mpl, Rd for the beam, and lateral buckling will be less critical than before. There is no need to find the stiffness of the joint at this stage, because it is clearly either ‘rigid’ or ‘semi-rigid’. Either type may be treated as ‘semi-rigid’. (D8.3)

Approximate global analysis Tables in Appendix B of Couchman and Way104 enable a rough check to be made on this initial design, without much calculation. They give resistances Mj, Rd in terms of the cross-section of the steel beam, its yield strength, the thickness and grade of the end plate, the number and size of bolts in tension, and the area of reinforcement. Even though the beam used here is an IPE section, it can be deduced that Mj, Rd is about 400 kN m. For both spans fully loaded, it was found in Example 6.7 that MEd at B was 536 kN m from loading (see Fig. 6.28) plus 120 kN m from shrinkage. The flexural stiffness of the joint is not yet known, but it will be between zero and ‘fully rigid’. If fully rigid, the joint will obviously be ‘plastic’ under ultimate loading, and there will then be no secondary shrinkage moment. At mid-span, for the total load of 35.7 kN/m (see Table 6.2), the sagging bending moment is then

357 ×122/8 – 400/2 = 443 kN m If the joint acts as a pin, the mid-span moment is 443 + 200 = 643 kN m It is recommended in Couchman and Way104 that mid-span resistances should be taken as 0.85Mpl, Rd, to limit the rotation required at the joints. From Example 6.7, Mpl, Rd with full shear connection is 1043 kN m, so the bending resistance of the beam is obviously sufficient.

**Vertical shear For MEd = 400 kN m at B, the vertical shear at B is
**

Fv, Ed, B = 35.7 × 6 + 400/12 = 247 kN The shear resistance of the four M20 bolts is now found, using Table 3.4 of EN 1993-1-8. Two of the bolts may be at yield in tension. The shear applied to these bolts must satisfy Fv, Ed /Fv, Rd + Ft, Ed /(1.4Ft, Rd) £ 1.0

2

(D8.4)

The net shear area of each bolt is As, b = 245 mm , so from Table 3.4 of EN 1993-1-8, Fv, Rd = 0.6fub As, b/γM2 = 0.6 × 800 × 0.245/1.25 = 94.1 kN From equation (D8.3) with Ft, Ed = Ft, Rd, Fv, Ed £ (1 – 1/1.4)Fv, Rd = 27 kN For four bolts, Fv, Rd = 2 × (94.1 + 27) = 242 kN (D8.5)

149

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

This shows that it may be necessary to add a second pair of bolts in the compression region of the joint.

Bending resistance of the joint, excluding reinforcement Unpropped construction was used in Example 6.7. From Table 6.2, the design ultimate load for the steel beam is 7.8 kN/m. For the construction phase, this is increased to 9.15 kN/m, to allow for the higher density of fresh concrete and the construction imposed loading. For rigid joints at the internal support between two 12 m spans,

MEd, B = wL2/8 = 9.15 × 122/8 = 165 kN m The plastic resistance of the joint during construction is required. An upper limit is easily obtained. The lever arm from the top bolts to the centre of the bottom flange is zbolts = 450 – 60 – 7.3 = 383 mm The resistance cannot exceed FT, Rd, bolts zbolts = 282 × 0.383 = 108 kN m (D8.7) so the previous hogging bending moment of 165 kN m cannot be reached. It is assumed that the stiffness of the joint is sufficient for its plastic resistance, found later to be 83 kN m, to be reached under the factored construction loading. Resistance of T-stubs and bolts in tension The calculation of the bending resistance consists of finding the ‘weakest links’ in both tension and compression. In tension, the column flange and the end plate are each modelled as T-stubs, and prying action may occur. Some of the dimensions required are shown in Fig. 8.9. From Fig. 6.8 of EN 1993-1-8, the dimensions m overlap with 20% of the corner fillet or weld. Thus, in Fig. 8.9(a), for the end plate: m = 45 – 4.7 – 0.8 × 8 = 33.9 mm (D.8.8) It is evident from the geometry shown in Fig. 8.9 that the end plate is weaker than the column flange, so its resistance is now found. (D8.6)

m = 23.2 e = 75 tf = 17

0.8rc = 16.8

rc = 21

m2 = 37.4

tp = 12

55

m = 33.9

8

(a) Plan details of T-stubs

55

33.9

(b) Yield line pattern in end plate

Fig. 8.9. Dimensions of T-stubs, and the yield line pattern

150

CHAPTER 8. COMPOSITE JOINTS IN FRAMES FOR BUILDINGS

Q/2 Ft, Rd

q

n

m

FT, 2, Rd

Fig. 8.10. Plan of a T-stub, showing failure mode 2

Clause 6.2.4.1 of EN 1993-1-8 gives three possible failure modes: (1) yielding of the plate (2) a combination of (1) and (3) (3) failure of the bolts in tension. Yield line theory is used for bending of the plate. The critical mechanism in this case will be either that shown in Fig. 8.9(b) or a circular fan, for which the perimeter is

eff, cp

= 2πm

from Table 6.6 in clause 6.2.6.5 of EN 1993-1-8. For the non-circular pattern, dimension m2 in Fig. 8.8(a) is also relevant, and

eff, nc

= αm

£ 2πm

where α is given by Fig. 6.11 in EN 1993-1-8 or in Fig. 4.9 of Couchman and Way.104 In this case, α = 6.8, so the circular pattern governs for mode (1), and

eff, 1

= 2πm = 6.28 × 33.9 = 213 mm (D8.9)

The plastic resistance per unit length of plate is mpl, Rd = 0.25tf2 fy /γM0 = 0.25 × 122 × 0.275/1.0 = 9.90 kN m/m From equation (D8.3), the tensile resistance of a pair of bolts is 282 kN. Mode 1. For mode 1, yielding is confined to the plate. From Table 6.2 of EN 1993-1-8, the equation for this mode is FT, 1, Rd = 4Mpl, 1, Rd /m with Mpl, 1, Rd = 0.25

eff, 1 f

t 2 fy /γM0 =

eff, 1

mpl, Rd = 0.213 × 9.9 = 2.11 kN m

From equation (D8.8) for m, FT, 1, Rd = 4 × 2.11/0.0339 = 249 kN Mode 2. This mode is more complex. The equation for the tension resistance FT, 2, Rd is now explained. The effective length of the perimeter of the mechanism is eff, 2, and the work done for a rotation θ at its perimeter is 2mpl, Rd eff, 2θ, from yield line theory. With each bolt failing in tension, the work equation is

151

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

FT, 2, Rd(m + n)θ = n

SF

t, Rd

θ + 2mpl, Rd

eff, 2

θ

(D8.10)

where n is shown in Fig. 8.10. In Table 6.2 of EN 1993-1-8 there is the further condition that n £ 1.25m = 1.25 × 33.9 = 42.4 mm The effective length

eff, 2

= αm = 6.8 × 33.9 = 231 mm

from Table 6.6 of EN 1993-1-8. For two bolts, Substituting in equation (D8.10):

SF

t, Rd

= 282 kN, from equation (D8.3).

FT, 2, Rd = (2mpl, Rd eff, 2 + n Ft, Rd)/(m + n) = (2 × 9.9 × 231 + 42.4 × 282)/76.3 = 217 kN Mode 3. Failure of the bolts – mode 3 – has FT, 3, Rd = 282 kN from equation (D8.3), so mode 2 governs. From Fig. 8.10, the prying force is Q = 282 – 217 = 65 kN

S

(D8.11)

Beam web in tension The equivalent T-stub in Fig. 8.10 applies a tensile force of 217 kN to the web of the beam. Its resistance is given in clause 6.2.6.8 of EN 1993-1-8 as Ft, wb, Rd = beff, t, wb twb fy, wb /γM0 (equation (6.22) of EN 1993-1-8), and beff, t, wb is taken as the effective length of the T-stub, eff, 2 = 231 mm. Hence, Ft, wb, Rd = 231 × 9.4 × 0.355/1.0 = 771 kN so this does not govern. Column web in tension The effective width of the column web in tension, to clause 6.2.6.3 of EN 1993-1-8, is the length of the T-stub representing the column flange. The resistance is Ft, wc, Rd = ωbeff, t, wc twc fy, wc /γM0 where ω is a reduction factor to allow for shear in the column web. In this case, the shear is zero, and ω = 1. The column web is thicker than the beam web, so from result (D8.12), its resistance does not govern. Column web in transverse compression The resistance is given in clause 6.2.6.2 of EN 1993-1-8. It depends on the plate slenderness λp and the width of the column web in compression, which is beff, c, wc = tf, b + 2÷2ap + 5(tfc + s) + sp (equation (6.11) of EN 1993-1-8), where ap is the throat thickness of the bottom-flange welds, so ÷2ap = 10 mm here; sp allows for 45° dispersion through the end plate, and is 24 mm here; and s is the root radius of the column section (s = rc = 21 mm). Hence, beff, c, wc = 14.6 + 20 + 5 × (17 + 21) + 24 = 248 mm For web buckling, the effective compressed length is dwc = hc – 2(tfc + rc) = 240 – 2 × (17 + 21) = 164 mm (D8.12)

152

CHAPTER 8. COMPOSITE JOINTS IN FRAMES FOR BUILDINGS

The plate slenderness is λ p = 0.932(beff, c, wcdwc fy, wc /Eatwc2)0.5 = 0.932 × [248 × 164 × 0.355/(210 × 100)]0.5 = 0.773 The reduction factor for plate buckling is ρ = (λ p – 0.2)/λ p 2 = 0.573/0.7732 = 0.96 The factor ω for web shear is 1.0, as before. It is assumed that the maximum longitudinal compressive stress in the column is less than 0.7fy, wc, so from clause 6.2.6.2(2) of EN 1993-1-8, the reduction factor for this, kwc, is 1.0. From equation (6.9) in EN 1993-1-8, Fc, wc, Rd = ωkwcρbeff, c, wctwc fy, wc /γM1 = 0.96 × 248 ×10 × 0.355/1.0 = 845 kN (D8.13)

Clearly, the tensile force of 217 kN governs the resistance of the steel connection. Bending resistance of the steel joint, for both beams fully loaded From equation (D8.5), the lever arm is 383 mm, so the resistance, excluding the reinforcement, is Mj, Rd, steel = 217 × 0.383 = 83 kN m (D8.14) governed by bending of the end plate. The critical mode 2 includes failure of the top row of bolts in tension. However, the joint is closely based on a type given in Couchman and Way,104 which is confirmed by ECCS TC1139 as having ‘ductile’ behaviour. From Example 6.7, the plastic bending resistance of the steel beam, an IPE 450 section, is Mpl, a, Rd = 1.702 × 355 = 604 kN m This exceeds four times Mj, Rd, so clause 5.2.3.2(3) of EN 1993-1-8 permits this joint to be classified as ‘nominally pinned’ for the construction stage.

Resistance of the composite joint For the composite joint, the reinforcement is at yield in tension. Its resistance is

Ft, s, Rd = 1206 × 0.500/1.15 = 524 kN This increases the total compressive force to Fc = 217 + 524 = 741 kN (D8.15) This is less than the compressive resistance of 845 kN, found above. The bars act at a lever arm of 543 mm (Fig. 8.8(a)), so the bending resistance of the composite joint is Mj, Rd, comp = 83 + 524 × 0.543 = 83 + 284 = 367 kN m (D8.16)

Check on vertical shear For the maximum design beam load of 35.7 kN/m and a hogging resistance moment at B of 367 kN m, the vertical shear in each beam at B is 244 kN, which just exceeds the shear resistance found earlier, 242 kN. It will probably be found from elastic–plastic global analysis that the vertical shear at B is reduced by the flexibility of the joints. If necessary, two extra M20 bolts can be added in the lower half of each end plate. This has no effect on the preceding results for resistance to bending.

Maximum load on span BC, with minimum load on span AB This loading causes maximum shear in the column web. There is an abrupt change in the tension in the slab reinforcement at B. The load acting on the steel members is equal for

153

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

the two spans, and is assumed to cause a hogging bending moment at node B equal to the resistance of the joints, 83 kN m from equation (D8.11). The ultimate loads on the composite member are 1.62 kN/m on AB and 27.9 kN/m on BC (see Table 6.2). The flexibility of the joints and cracking of concrete both reduce hogging bending moments, so both are neglected in these checks on shear in the column web and anchorage of the reinforcement. The moment on the composite joint at B in span BC is taken as the additional resistance provided by the slab reinforcement, which is 284 kN m (equation (D8.16)). For the other three members meeting at node B, elastic analysis gives the bending moments shown in Fig. 8.11(a). The total bending moments at B, including construction, are shown in Fig. 8.11(b). The shear forces in columns DB and BE are (75 + 37.5)/3 = 37.5 kN If the end plate in span AB is plastic under ultimate construction loading, the whole of the difference between the beam moments shown is caused by change of tension in the reinforcement. Thus, the relevant lever arm, z, is 543 mm. From clause 5.3(3) of EN 1993-1-8, the shear force on the web panel is Vwp, Ed = (Mb1, Ed – Mb2, Ed)/z – (Vc1, Ed – Vc2, Ed)/2 = (367 – 217)/0.543 – [37.5 – (–37.5)]/2 = 276.2 – 37.5 = 239 kN The sign convention used here is given in Fig. 5.6 of EN 1993-1-8. It is evident from Fig. 8.11(b) and the equation above that the web shear from the beams, 276 kN, is reduced by the shear forces in the column. The change of force in the reinforcement is 276 kN. Shear resistance of the column web From clause 6.2.6.1(1) of EN 1993-1-8, the shear resistance of an unstiffened column web panel is Vwp, Rd = 0.9fy, wc Avc/(÷3γM0) where Avc is the shear area of the column web. This is given in EN 1993-1-1, and is 3324 mm2 here. Hence, Vwp, Rd = 0.9 × 0.355 × 3324/(÷3× 1.0) = 613 kN (> Vwp, Ed)

This load arrangement therefore does not govern the design of the joint.

75 37.5 D 134 + 83 3 1.62 kN/m A 284 134 75 B 27.9 kN/m C

z

284 + 83

37.5 E 12 12 37.5 75

(a) Bending-moment diagram (kN m)

(b) Action affects on joint (kN and kN m)

Fig. 8.11. Analyses for unequal design loadings (ultimate limit state) on spans AB and BC

154

and the force depends on the directions chosen for the struts.8 38.15 = 147 kN which exceeds the tie force of 122 kN shown in Fig. 8. The available area of column flange to resist bearing stress is 80 × (120 + 115) = 18 800 mm2 so the mean stress is 155 .1 146 110 Joint BA. The strut-and-tie model shown in Fig. The mean distance of the three 16 mm bars shown in Fig. for calculation. The depth of concrete available is 80 mm. The two concrete struts AB and AD shown in Fig.2 requires transverse reinforcement to resist the force Ftq shown in the figure. 8. Insertion of three more bars (As = 339 mm2) at 200 mm spacing provides an extra resistance TRd = 339 × 0.08 × 0.12.12. With fck = 25 N/mm2. 8. and is obviously available.8(d) from the centre-line of the column is 420 mm. 8.12 can.1. 8. the total width of the struts is bc = (184 × 1.85 × 25) = 163 mm This width is shown to scale in Fig.6 Anchorage of the force from the reinforcement The force of 276 kN (above) has to be anchored in the column.CHAPTER 8. The existing transverse reinforcement (Example 6. no top bolts 61. 8. Initial stiffnesses of joints. elastic Composite joint. ini (kN m/mrad) No shear Steel joint Composite joint. COMPOSITE JOINTS IN FRAMES FOR BUILDINGS A 138 kN 184 kN 122 kN 163 420 D 3 No. with shear – 118 118 Joint BC. Sj.5)/(0.7) is 12 mm bars at 200 mm spacing. be replaced by line AC.5/1.12. with shear – 48. Resolution of forces at point A gives the strut force as 184 kN. 12 bars at 200 mm B C 50 300 120 120 Fig. Strut-and-tie model for anchorage of unbalanced tension in slab reinforcement Table 8. Three extra bars are provided on each side of the column.

1. and to act as hinges for further loading.39 Ψ = 2.52.1) and (D8.1(5) of ECCS TC11. Ed = Mj.2).7 for bolted end-plate joints.3. The mid-span moments therefore exceed those calculated. so simplifications are given in clause 5.2 of EN 1993-1-8 and in section 9.1. a nominal stiffness Sj = Sj. (D8.e. µ = 2) where joints are required to behave within their elastic range. Thus.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 (276/2)/18.1. the joints were assumed to be rigid until their resistance Mj. There is little inelastic curvature in the regions of sagging moment. µ = 1.34 N/mm2 well below the design compressive strength of the concrete. the rotation is φ = Mj/Sj For the ‘beam’. Ij = (Lj/Ea)Sj Hence. and ‘usual cases’. Rd (i. as follows: • for a composite beam-to-column joint with a flush end-plate connection. where Mj.8.1) has an overall length of 240 + 2 × 12 = 264 mm. Account must be taken of the flexibility of each joint. Rd. In the preceding global analyses. and are given in Table 8.3. and Mj. as in this example. Ed leads to iterative analysis. For a bending moment Mj.7 = 2. the joints are included in conventional elastic analyses as follows. 10–6Ij = (132/210)Sj = 0. and is appropriate where there is ample bending resistance at mid-span. This neglect of the elastic rotation of the joints at moments below Mj. it is φ = MjLj/EaIj Eliminating φ/Mj. so each joint is represented by a beam-type member of length Lj = 132 mm and second moment of area Ij.99 (D8. Rd leads to overestimation of the hogging bending moments at the joints.4(2)). This method is safe for the verification of the joints. from equation (D8.4. From Fig.18) 156 .3.1(6) of EN 1993-1-8 or clause J.5 of ECCS TC1139 for use in elastic frame analysis. The typical joint details given in Couchman and Way. Serviceability checks The preceding analyses are inadequate for serviceability checks on deflections or crack width. the stiffness Sj. 8. so no further verification of rotation capacity is required. ini should be used.104 which were used here. Stiffness of the joints and rotation capacity. Rd was reached.2). a pair of joints (see Fig. for moments up to Mj. 8. were shown to have adequate rotation capacity by a calculation method19 supported by tests (clause 8. so the rotation at the joints is much less than that required for the development of mid-span plastic hinges.8 = 7.63Sj with Ij in units of mm4 and Sj in units of kN m/mrad. • Here. ini/2 may be used. Rd/3. ultimate limit state The initial stiffnesses of these joints are calculated in Example 10. From clause 6.17) This dependence of the joint stiffness Sj on Mj. as given by equations (D8. Ed should not exceed 2Mj.4(3)) or are those ‘which experience has proved have adequate properties’ (clause 8.

Analysis for steel beams. 1. From Table 8.2 mm4 For the beam. it reduced the deflection by less than 1 mm. The calculation model for the composite phase takes account of cracking. 8.1 and equation (D8. with I in units of mm4.4 mm4 so the calculation model for the steel joints is as shown in Fig. Rd.78 kN/m. 8. serviceability limit state Maximum deflection. Analysis for composite beams.5 = 12.2 467 828 C 12 000 132 1668 10 200 Fig.3 kN/m.63 × 39. and the frequent value of the imposed load. ini = 39. which is 82% of Mj. The load at the end of construction.5 kN/m A 10–6I 828 467 74 12. 10–6Iay = 337.2 kN/m 13.) The moment in the connection in span BA is low. 8.14.5 mm4 (The effect of including the full stiffness of the steel joint (Sj. COMPOSITE JOINTS IN FRAMES FOR BUILDINGS 5. acts on span BC only.18).6 kN m/mrad) is small. The floor finishes. serviceability limit state 10–6I 113 1.1/2 = 19.63 × 61. If this is neglected.8 kN m/mrad.1. steel maximum deflection of span BC: 13. Sj.4 C Fig. From Table 8.14.2 kN/m. 10–6Ij = 0. with I in units of mm4. 5.6/2 = 12. ini = 48. so µ = 1. with imposed load on span BC only Separate calculations are required for the steel joints and the composite joints.78 kN/m Mj. The results are: • • bending moment in the connection in span BC: 67.7 kN m. not 38. act on both spans.6 kN m/mrad (Table 8.Ek 19.1) and 10–6Ij.13.13. µ = 2.2.CHAPTER 8. For the joint in span BC.63 × 118 = 74 mm4 For the column. with µ = 2. is applied to both spans.2 B 132 10–6I 11 868 337. then for the composite joint in span BC. BC = 0. BA = 0.8 mm. and uses the modular ratio n = 20.7 × 17. The results are: 157 . 10–6Iy = 113 mm4 The calculation model is shown in Fig. 8. 0. 10–6Ij. There is a little unused tensile resistance from the steel connection.

Ek = 70 kN m. The imposed-load deflection is about 17 mm.15. 6. and used Sj = 38. rather than by secondary bending of the beam. as these angles of slope are very small. will decrease the 15 mm deflection found above. shrinkage imposes a significant increase of rotation on each joint. The mid-span shrinkage deflection is then about 15 mm.27(b).8 and 2.3 = 3.9 mm.1(b).206) = 203 N/mm2 158 . and is not important.543 × 1.3) by 4. The lever arm for the reinforcement. Accurate calculation is difficult where semi-rigid joints are used. Fig. Calculations in Example 6.2 kN m maximum deflection of span BC: 17.6/2 = 19. Cracking of concrete Elastic analysis of the composite frame for service (frequent) loading acting on both spans.8 mrad for each joint. giving a rotation of 70/19. found the hogging bending moment at B to be 133 kN m.7 found that R = 1149 m and δ = 45.3). but with compatibility restored by rotation of the joint at B. is 543 mm (Fig.7 mm found above. The total deflection of span BC is therefore 13. The effect of shrinkage of concrete. It is concluded that the shrinkage deflection lies in the range 10–12 mm. The modular ratio used allows for some creep. The preceding calculation for the composite joint found Mj. is discussed in Example 7. respectively.8(a)). so the tensile stress is σs = 133/(0. The additional deflection of the composite slabs. of area 1206 mm2. while far less than the 120 kN m found for the fully continuous beam. and the resulting increase of hogging moment at B.9 = 31.3 kN m/mrad. 8.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 R 3. or span/700. Primary shrinkage deformation of span BC • • bending moment at B in span BC: 70. The primary shrinkage deformations for the 24 m length of beam are shown in Fig. as follows. 8. From the geometry of Fig. 8. for the frequent loading.7 mm or span/380.1. 6. relative to that of the beams. The result for the fully continuous beam was 7 mm (see Table 7.8 + 17.6 mrad. otherwise similar to those outlined above.3 mm. 6.27(b).9 mm. but estimates can be made. 8. The most conservative assumption is that the flexibility of the joints reduces the secondary shrinkage moment (which reduces deflections) to zero. Thus. The direction shown for δ is consistent with that in Fig.8 mrad C 15 mm B 1800 10 200 d Fig. additional to the 31. this rotation is found to be 3.15.15 shows the same primary curvature as in Fig. These two components exceed the values found for the fully continuous beam (see Table 7.

and that very wide cracks will not occur. However.8(d)). The values in Tables 7.2 take no account of this situation.3 mm given in Table 7.CHAPTER 8. 159 .1 is satisfied by a wide margin. It can be concluded that the top reinforcement is unlikely to yield in service. which happens to be the limiting value for a crack width of 0. the strain field in the slab is disturbed locally by the column and by the concentrated rotations associated with the joints.2 of EN 1994-1-1. COMPOSITE JOINTS IN FRAMES FOR BUILDINGS The mean spacing of the 16 mm bars is about 250 mm (see Fig. The alternative condition in Table 7.1 and 7. 8.

which has the following clauses: • • • • • • • • General Detailing provisions Actions and action effects Analysis for internal forces and moments Verification of profiled steel sheeting as shuttering for ultimate limit states Verification of profiled steel sheeting as shuttering for serviceability limit states Verification of composite slabs for ultimate limit states Verification of composite slabs for serviceability limit states Clause 9. br/bs in clause 9. A.6. with ribs running in one direction.2 and Fig. result in a system that effectively spans in one direction only. especially if the thickness of the slab above the sheeting is minimized.1 Clause 9. It should probably be a function of the thickness of the slab above the sheeting. If the troughs are too narrow.6. the test to failure is under static loading. to save weight.8 9. This notation is as in Fig. it should normally be less than about 0.1. Although the initial loading is cyclic.1. The ratio of the gap between webs to the web spacing. if dynamic effects are expected. General Scope The form of construction and the scope of Section 9 are defined in clause 9.4).1. No account is taken of any contribution from the top flange of the sheeting to resistance to transverse bending.7 Clause 9. 6 and 7.6 Clause 9. the shear strength of stud connectors placed within them is reduced (clause 6. Thus. the ability of the slab to spread loads across several webs may be inadequate. Such a wide range of profiles is in use that it was necessary to permit the limit to br/bs to be determined nationally.1. If the web spacing is too wide.2 Clause 9.4 Clause 9. the detailed design for the particular project Clause 9. 9. The design methods for composite slabs given in Section 9 are based on test procedures described in clause B.5 Clause 9.CHAPTER 9 Composite slabs with profiled steel sheeting for buildings This chapter corresponds to Section 9 of EN 1994-1-1. and there may be insufficient resistance to vertical shear.1(2)P.3 Clause 9.1.3.1. and its action as tensile reinforcement for the finished floor.1 in Appendix A. As a guide.1(2)P . is an important property of a composite slab. The slab can also act as the concrete flange of a composite beam spanning in any direction relative to that of the ribs. Provision is made for this in the clauses on design of beams in Sections 5.1 Clause 9. The shape of the steel profile.

taking account of any expected deflection of the surface that supports them.1.2.2. Clause 9.5(1).11 of EN 1991-1-6 specifies an imposed load of 10% of the weight of the concrete.1(2)P).2 Types of shear connection As for other types of composite member. so tight tolerances (clause B. Here.1(3)P Clause 9. or design can be based on partial shear connection.11.1(2)P experience of floors with these dimensions.11 of EN 1991-1-6.3.1 as a reliable method of shear connection.1.1(4)P). If verification relies on the redistribution of moments in the sheeting due to local buckling or yielding.2.1.4.107 9.2.1(4) Table 7. not by the lower amount given in clause 9. that the former is what remains after the 5000 cycles of loading specified in clause B. Detailing provisions Clause 9.g.3. but not less than 0. this must be allowed for in the subsequent check on deflection of the completed floor. Actions and action effects Clause 9.3.1(3) proposes a characteristic distributed load of 1 kN/m2. A slab used as a diaphragm is treated similarly.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Clause 9. Clause 9.1).1(5)) is available in EN 1993-1-1 and elsewhere.1(4). a note to clause 4. Annex A of EN 1991-1-19 recommends 24 kN/m3.108 For working personnel and small site equipment. increased by 1 kN/m3 for ‘normal’ reinforcement and by another 1 kN/m3 for unhardened concrete. the minimum reinforcement transverse to its span is governed by the rules for the flange of the beam (e. Further guidance may be given in the National Annex.1(3)P and 9.3.3.2.3.1(4)P Clause 9. 9. They can be augmented by anchorages at the ends of each sheet.(1)P The limits to thickness given in clauses 9. the distinction between ‘frictional interlock’ and ‘bond’ is.1(5) must ensure that the integrity of the composite action is maintained (clauses 9.1(b)).2.2. This subject is covered in comments on clause 6.4.2.2.2. For a slab acting compositely with a beam.1. which is penalized in clause B. with occasional checking on site.2. such as the length of stud that extends above the sheeting and the concrete cover.1. The lengths for bearing onto steel or concrete are identical to those given in BS 5950: Part 4.1(2)P) to suit the detailing rules for stud connectors. In addition to self-weight.2.1.2(1) refers to clause 4. as defined in clause 9.1. the minimum depths are increased (clause 9. These two standard forms of interlock are sometimes insufficient to provide full shear connection.1. less likely to be critical where propping is used. No limits are given for the depth of the profiled sheeting.1(1)P and 9. bond is not accepted in clause 9. Because of the wide range of profiles used. clause 4.3(2)) should be maintained on these during manufacture.3.2. but this is. care should be taken to set these at the correct level.1 Clause 9. of course. as shown in Fig. The quality of mechanical interlock is sensitive to the height or depth of the small local deformations of the sheeting.75 kN/m2 (which Clause 9. Its minimum depth will be governed by deflection.1. For the weight density of normal-weight concrete. Slabs made with some profiles have a brittle mode of failure. clause 9.2.3.3 The minimum bearing lengths (clause 9. resistance to longitudinal shear has always been based on tests. 9. 9.2. Clause 9.1(2)P are based on satisfactory Clause 9. Guidance on the degree of lateral restraint provided to steel beams (clause 9.1. For the loading on the profiled sheeting.2(1) 162 .1. Where a slab spans onto a hogging moment region of a composite beam. Sheeting without local deformations of profile is permitted where the profile is such that some lateral pressure will arise from shrinkage of the concrete (Fig.106 Inverted U-frame action relies also on flexural restraint.2. in effect.1.3) are based on accepted good practice.1(2)P Profiled sheeting Where props are used for profiled sheeting (clause 9.

as 1.75 kN/m2 outside this area. COMPOSITE SLABS WITH PROFILED STEEL SHEETING FOR BUILDINGS 0. Bending moments for a two-span beam or slab for uniform loading. because a safe lower bound to the ultimate resistance is obtained. but not where the sheeting extends over more than one span. Sometimes.4. normally governs its design. Guidance on the avoidance of overload during construction is available elsewhere.070wL2 L L Fig. applied to a working area of 3 × 3 m. Elastic global analysis can be used.2(2) gives a condition for its effects to be ignored. for use when checking the total deflection of the floor in service. The reduction in stiffness due to parts of the cross-section yielding in compression will be greatest in these regions.3.1(2) rules out plastic redistribution where propping is used.CHAPTER 9.125wL2 0.35 for the whole of the weight density of 26 kN/m3.3.1(2) 163 .2(B) of EN 1990. Clause 9. elastic theory without redistribution usually governs).1 for a two-span slab under distributed loading. Clause 9.107 the redistribution is given as between 5 and 15%. and 0. Elastic moments calculated for uniform stiffness are normally greatest at internal supports. The construction load and the extra loading from mounding are not present at this time.1 of EN 1991-1-6. as shown in Fig.4.1. This condition. Analysis for internal forces and moments Profiled steel sheeting Clause 9. are not required. This suggests that redistribution exceeding about 10% should not be used in absence of supporting evidence from tests.4. and the ψ factors for serviceability.2 of BS 5950-4. the profiled sheeting is not propped. which will cause redistribution of moment from the supports to mid-span.3.110 and in a note to clause 5.3. or the check on the deflection of the finished floor. Clause 9.1(1) refers to EN 1993-1-3.3(6)). as is usual.2(2) Composite slab The resistances of composite slabs are determined by plastic theory or by empirical factors based on tests in which all of the loading is resisted by the composite section (clause B. Clause 9. this check should be made using the most critical arrangement of imposed load.4. explained above. given in Table A. so the deflection is from permanent load only. It then carries all these loads.109 Partial factors for ultimate limit states are recommended in Table A1.3. 9.35 for permanent actions and 1. whereas at the location of a prop it will be in the opposite direction. For the serviceability limit state. In a technical note from 1984.25 which gives no guidance on global analysis of continuous members of light-gauge steel. Clause 9. even though the extra 1 kN/m3 for unhardened concrete is not strictly ‘permanent’. This permits design checks for the ultimate limit state to be made under the whole of the loading (clause 9.3(2)). to allow for the mounding that occurs during delivery of fresh concrete. It would be reasonable to use 1. to increase the speed of construction. Where profiled sheeting is continuous over several supports.5 for variable actions. This corresponds to a layer of normal-weight concrete about 35 mm thick.3.1(1) Clause 9. the deflection of the sheeting when the concrete hardens is important.4. and clause 9. Subsequent flexure over a permanent support will be in the same direction (hogging) as during construction. 9.3(2) 9.2(1) refers to ‘ponding’.

6(2) is accepted good practice. 9.4.2(4) are satisfied. Verification of composite slabs for the ultimate limit states 9.4. Clause 9. To resist these moments may require heavy reinforcement. Test results are also influenced by local buckling within the flat parts of the steel profile.7.7.81 The effective width depends on the ratio between the longitudinal and transverse flexural stiffnesses of the slab. Clause 9. Numerical and experimental research on continuous slabs has been reported.5(1) The design checks before composite action is established are done to EN 1993-1-3. the maximum design loads calculated by elastic analysis with limited redistribution were found to be less than those obtained by treating each span as simply supported. Clause 9. and should not be assumed to apply for the ‘largely repetitive’ loads to which clause 9. 9.1. and the concrete is cast over this length without joints. and by the enhanced yield strength at cold-formed corners.4.7.1. Flexure 164 . test data and experience. Verification of profiled steel sheeting as shuttering Clause 9. The maximum deflection of L/180 given in the note to clause 9.3(5) is not generous for a point load of 7.4. If the slab is to be treated as continuous.2(3)).4.7. as in the example in Fig. This loss and the effects of local buckling are both difficult to determine theoretically. bem and bev are important in practice. If elastic global analysis is used based on the uncracked stiffness.1(3)P refers. the composite slab is in reality continuous. The studies showed that no check on rotation capacity need be made provided the conditions given in clause 9.4. Other approaches that reduce the quantity of hogging reinforcement needed are the use of redistribution of moments (clause 9.3(5) 9. Effective width for concentrated point and line loads The ability of composite slabs to carry masonry walls or other heavy local loads is limited. Deflection from ponding of wet concrete is covered in clause 9.2(4) Composite slab As the steel sheets are normally continuous over more than one span.7.2(3) Clause 9. unless tests show otherwise.4. plastic analysis is more advantageous. This arises because the large resistance to sagging moment is not fully utilized. and of plastic analysis (clause 9. in Johnson.4. They are based on a mixture of simplified analysis.5–9.7.5 kN.111 With typical relative values of moment resistance at internal supports and at mid-span. The nominal transverse reinforcement given in clause 9.2(2).2. with a worked example. Design criterion No comment is needed.3.2(3) says that deformed areas of sheeting should be ignored in calculations of section properties. Clause 9.6.4.111 Clause 9.2(5)). This can be avoided by designing the slab as a series of simply-supported spans (clause 9.2(3) The rules in clause 9. provided that crack-width control is not a problem. The nature of these slabs results in effective widths narrower than those given in BS 811017 for solid reinforced concrete slabs.3 for the effective widths bm.3 Clause 9. the resulting moments at internal supports are high.6(2) 9.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Clause 9. No guidance on relevant testing is given. Design recommendations provided by manufacturers are based in part on the results of loading tests on the sheeting concerned.1.2(4)).5(1) refers to the loss of effective cross-section that may be caused by deep deformations of the sheeting.4.2 are based on research reported in Stark and Brekelmans.107 and are further discussed. The rules of clause 9.

7. Subject to sufficient test data being available. The tests on composite slabs are defined in clause B. 9. tests can be done in which the shear span is long enough.3.2(6). and may be close to the gross area of the sheeting. (D9. theory based on stress blocks as in Fig. f z where z and Mpr are given by equations (9. a value found from a bending test on the sheeting alone could be used. The design yield strength of the profiled sheeting. The specification for these involves a compromise between exploring interactions between the many relevant parameters and limiting the cost of testing to a level such that the use of new profiles is not prevented.g.1(1).7.2(7)). and its own bending resistance make composite slabs less sensitive to premature crushing of concrete. Their derivation is on record.3(2) The m–k method.6. The tests are suitable for finding the design resistance to longitudinal shear by either of the methods referred to in clause 9. it may be possible to convert the former values to ‘Eurocode’ values.7. Bending resistances of composite slabs are based on rectangular stress blocks (clauses 9. especially for slabs with ‘non-ductile’ behaviour. because it may not be continuous. The concrete in compression within the trough is neglected.7.5) then correctly gives the lever arm as z = h – hc/2 – e. f = Ape fyp. 9. to prevent premature crushing of the concrete before the reinforcement yields. If the strengths of the materials are known. as discussed in comments on clause 3. the compressive strain in concrete is limited.7. In design of reinforced concrete beams. typically between 280 and 420 N/mm2 (lower than that of reinforcement). can be calculated from the moment resisted.5. to provide continuity with earlier practice. the 0. Longitudinal shear for slabs without end anchorage Design of composite slabs for longitudinal shear is based on the results of tests.2(4) for local buckling take account of the restraint provided to one side of the sheeting by the concrete. Conversion can be difficult. determined in accordance with codes such as BS 5950: Part 4.7.7. when in tension.6). Alternatively. A model for ductile behaviour is given in Appendix B. or the end anchorage is sufficient.3.107 cannot be used in design to EN 1994-1-1. on which comments are given in Chapter 11 of this guide.5) and (9.7. When Nc. It is difficult to predict the effect of changes from test conditions using this method. the effective area of the sheeting.85 factor is included. When the neutral axis is within the sheeting. for flexural failure to occur. the area of tensile reinforcement is usually small compared with the effective area of the sheeting. the contribution from the sheeting is usually ignored.1) Clause 9. the bending resistance is MRd = Mpr + Nc.CHAPTER 9.7. However. The effective widths in clause 9. Where it is continuous.2(6) 9. Clause 9. the neutral axis is at its top edge. but values of m and k. For stress in concrete. as explained in comments on clause B.2(4) Clause 9. The m–k test is included in EN 1994-1-1 in a modified form.2(5) Clause 9. excluding embossed areas) may reduce only slightly the calculated resistance to bending. COMPOSITE SLABS WITH PROFILED STEEL SHEETING FOR BUILDINGS For a composite slab in sagging bending. both for the m–k 165 . so that a conservative estimate of the latter (e.6 becomes very complex for some profiles so simplified equations are given in clause 9. d and the sheeting is entirely in tension. A study for the European Convention for Constructional Steelwork112 found many differences between methods of testing used. For a composite slab in hogging bending.2(5) to 9. There is no similar restriction for composite slabs.3. it could be a problem where stronger sheeting is used. because of the lack of analytical models. Equation (9. and existing tests An empirical ‘m–k method’ has long been established.3(2).7.111 As shown in Fig.

The analytical model.7.8 in clause B. It is over the length AC from this point to the end of the sheeting that significant slip occurs between the concrete and the sheeting.113. resistance to longitudinal shear is presented in clause 9.3(3). 9. f.2.3. but with an additional partial safety factor of 1.3(7) The partial connection method To avoid the risk of sudden failure. The location of point C is unknown. Nc.7. The m–k method may still be used.7. which differs from its use in clause 9. In clause 9.7.2) where the design shear strength τu. For the two-point loading in Fig.7.7. L is the span of a simply-supported test specimen.7. force Nc cannot exceed the force for full interaction.6(2) the degree of shear connection is defined as 166 .2.2.7. and the range of applicability of the values found may be uncertain. clause 6.3(4) in terms of vertical shear because of the way in which m and k are defined. as shown in Fig.1. The partial shear connection method is not applicable to slabs with this behaviour (clause 9. 9. expressed by the reduction factor 0. the compressive force Nc in a slab of breadth b is assumed to be given (equation (9. The definition of ‘shear span’ Ls for use with the m–k method is treated in clause 9. Its derivation takes account of the difference between the perimeter of a cross-section of sheeting and its overall breadth.3(6). to clause B.3. Shear–bond failure is characterized by the formation of a major crack in the slab at between one-quarter and one-third of the span from a support. and the finite widths of both the applied load and the support are further complications.7. In clause B. giving a relationship between load and deflection that should satisfy the definition of ‘ductile’ in clause 9.3.1 and 11. For plain sheeting. so this is the length over which the resistance to longitudinal shear is mobilized.3(4) Clause 9.7.5(1).3. profiled sheeting should have ductile behaviour in longitudinal shear. it is the length BD. the expected ultimate behaviour involves a combination of friction and mechanical interlock after initial slip.7. Rd is found by testing. one of which is within the steel profile.3(6).3(7) to 9.2. calculation of the mean shear strength τu is based on the length Ls + L0. and has been verified for slabs by full-scale tests.3(3) and 9.3(6) method and for the partial-connection method. Design data from test results should be found by the partial connection method of clauses 9.7. Shear spans for a composite slab with two-point loading Clause 9.7.3. For profiles with deformations. Such behaviour is not ‘ductile’ to clause 9. Rd bLx (D9.3(10). Further details are given in Examples 11. For an assumed flexural failure at a cross-section at a distance Lx from the nearest support. is similar to that used for composite beams. Hence. Clause 9.25. b. now given.3(2)).7.8).5(1).3(5) Clause 9. For the partial-interaction method.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 L/4 L/2 L/4 A B C D L0 Ls Fig.3(5).3(5). By its definition in equation (9.2. In clauses 9.2. which gives values for common load arrangements. For the m–k method. the ultimate shear resistance is not significantly greater than that for initial slip. and is referred to as ‘brittle’ in clause B.3(3).8)) by Nc = τu. there are two neutral axes.7. the ‘isostatic span’ is the approximate length between points of contraflexure in a continuous span of length L between supports. 9.114 It is used in Example 11.

The reduced value corresponds to the model used.4) The bending resistance MRd of the slab. determined by plastic analysis of the cross-section.7. giving a lever arm that is correct for η = 0.3) The longitudinal forces that determine the partial-interaction bending resistance MRd are all known.3.1.7. It is not clear in EN 1994-1-1 whether the symbol xpl in equation (9. The analytical model assumes that the total resistance is that from composite action of the concrete with both the sheeting and the bars.7. with evaluation based on measured strength of the reinforcement.3(8) Clause 9.1. and this reinforcement may be taken into account when calculating the resistance of the slab by the partial connection method.3(9) provides compensation by using the same effect in the structure being designed.6 (and Fig. The anchorage provided by studs is ductile. clause 9.7. A simplified method is given in clause 9. 9. Clause 9. where poor compaction of concrete may occur.3. as shown in Example 9. Clause 9.5 in this guide). but calculation of the resistance moment by the method used for partial interaction in composite beams is difficult. or the reduced value.7. which in this guide is written ηxpl. COMPOSITE SLABS WITH PROFILED STEEL SHEETING FOR BUILDINGS η = Nc/Nc. µREd. not stated in clause 9.5) of clause 9.7.5hc replaced by 0. can be deduced from Fig. f and 0.4 167 . Longitudinal shear for slabs with end anchorage Clause 9.9) increases from –ep to –e as η is increased from 0 to 1. The value recommended for the coefficient of friction µ is based on tests. With these changes. The correct value is ηxpl/2.9) means the full-interaction value. the plastic neutral axis is usually above the centroidal axis (i.5xpl. 9. to determine the lever arm z: z = h – 0.1(3)). It is MRd = Mpr + Nc z (D9.7.3(8). a lower value is obtained.7.7.5xpl – ep + (ep – e)ηNc.7. Rd. The design is satisfactory for longitudinal shear if the corresponding curve for MEd lies entirely within the one for MRd. as for reinforced concrete. as before. because equation (9. 9.2(7). The line of action of the longitudinal force in the sheeting (shown in Fig. 9.3(10) Clause 9.4.5. For profiled sheeting. Clause 9. f replaced by ηNc.CHAPTER 9. to contribute to the shear resistance required. and is recommended. by testing of specimens without additional reinforcement. d (9. that the force Nc in the sheeting acts at height ep above its bottom fibre. clause B. It can then be assumed. with Nc.9) becomes z = h – 0.3(10). 11. Rd is obtained. It is preferable to that provided by deformed ribs of re-entrant profiles. where xpl is the full-interaction value as shown in Fig. The value of the last two terms in equation (9.3. 11.5) Calculations for a range of values of Lx thus give the curve relating resistance MRd to the distance to the nearest support. f/Ape fyp. If the m–k method were to be used. It consists of using equation (9.5) assumes that the line of action of the force Nc in the slab is at depth hc/2.5ηxpl – ep (D9. and slightly too low for η < 1.e.1 and Fig. If this is allowed for when calculating τu.9) The reason for these changes is that where xpl is much less than hc. f (D9.12. equation (9.2(6). and (ep – e) z. for simplicity. for given η. ep > e).7. gives the higher value for z.2. The value of τu. the resistance to longitudinal shear is increased by the friction associated with the reaction at the adjacent end support.5) depends on its complex geometry.4 refers to the two types of end anchorage defined in clause 9. In tests. which would require a separate test series (clause B.3(9) Additional reinforcement Reinforcing bars may be provided in the troughs of the profiled sheeting. the method gives too low a value for MRd. reinforcement in troughs would be an additional variable.

6. which lists basic criteria for the verification of deformations.4. The methods of EN 1992-1-1 are applicable.2(1) Clause 9.6.7. The critical perimeter for punching shear (clause 9. Verification of composite slabs for serviceability limit states Clause 9.1(3)).6. In a composite slab.7.4(3).1(3)). the deflection of the sheeting at this time should be determined for the characteristic combination. but this assumption.4(2) Clause 9.8. if made.1(1) 9.5 refers to EN 1992-1-1. Clause 6. no guidance is given. end anchorage of either type may be included in the test specimens. For through-deck-welded studs it can be calculated.2(2) 9.1(4). Deflection Clause 9. with the characteristic load combination (clause 7.8. the imposed load on it is negligible.3. where the sheeting is the reinforcement.2(2) refers to EN 1993-1-3. Cracking of concrete Clause 9. This corresponds to an ‘irreversible’ limit state. which is appropriate for the deflection of sheeting due to the weight of the finished slab.1(2)) are the same as those for beams in clause 7.8.7.7.8. For a concrete slab this would be the appropriate effective depth in each direction.7.4(2)). Punching shear 9. and would require a separate test series. It is based on dispersion at 45° to the centroidal axis of the sheeting in the direction parallel to the ribs.6(1)) has rounded corners. Clause 9.5. to clause 9. the remaining deflection of the sheeting due to construction loads should also be negligible.3. but only to the top of the sheeting in the less stiff transverse direction. but each type is an additional variable (clause B. BS 5950-4107 takes the effective depth in both directions as that of the concrete above the top of the profiled steel sheeting.7. For a composite slab. Further comments are given in clause 6.2(7)). The prediction of construction loads may also be difficult. where resistance to vertical shear depends on the effective depth d of the section. If in doubt. For the construction phase. Clause 9. shown in Fig. Vertical shear Clause 9.8.8.8. Cracks may be permitted to form without any attempt to control their width.3(2) says that elastic theory should be used.1(4).6(1) 9.7.2.8.8. For the m–k method.8.1. to be used in conjunction with BS 8110.8.5 9.4 of EN 1992-1-1 gives the shear resistance as a stress.2(1) refers to EN 1990.7.1(2) For this situation. d is the distance dp to the centroid of the profile. provided that they do not impair the functioning of the structure. as does that used in EN 1992-1-1. the anchorage force is used as a contribution to the total force Nc (clause 9. It is not clear how a contribution from deformed ribs should be determined. so one needs to know the depth of slab on which this stress is assumed to act. 9.4(3) In the partial-connection method. where. should be based on relevant experience. neglecting the presence of the sheeting.17 Clause 9. clause 9. The model is based on the weld collar pulling through the end of the sheeting. even though the less adverse frequent combination is permitted for reversible deflections. Crack widths should always be controlled above supports of slabs subjected to travelling loads.6. where further comment is given.7.7. from clause 7. where clause 7. Clause 9.1(1) refers to EN 1992-1-1. It is therefore shorter than the rectangular perimeter used in BS 5950: Part 4. the provisions for minimum reinforcement above internal supports of composite slabs (clause 9.4.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Clause 9. 168 . Where it can be assumed that when the slab hardens.4. as end anchorage is not used in the test specimens (clause B.3.

2(3) Clause 9. and cosec α ª cot α = L/2ha As shown in the figure.4 no test data are available. The thickness hc of the arch rib must be such that at the relevant bending moment its compressive stress at mid-span is not excessive. Two-point loading is used for testing. and the slip behaviour will be known.8. Either the slip should be allowed for.2(7) provides a choice. where the comments made on continuous beams apply. and may be given in a National Annex.2(7) Tied-arch model The situation that is covered by clause 9.2(4) Clause 9. Its effectiveness would have to be found by testing and analysis by the m–k method.2(7) does not permit end anchors to be used in tests for the partial-connection method.8.2(4) permit calculation of deflections to be omitted if two conditions are satisfied.8.2(6). The effective depth should be that given in the comment on clause 9. 26 for an external span of a continuous slab and 30 for an internal span.3(b). The second condition.7. and in Examples 7. 9.3. This can be done by assuming that each point load equals the end reaction for a simply-supported span under service loading.3. There is no guidance on how much end anchorage is required.(4) of EN 1993-1-3 refers to a clause in EN 1993-1-1 which says that limits to deflection of sheeting ‘should be agreed’. but the arch will be so shallow that the following simplified method is quite accurate. The ratio L/ha is unlikely to be less than 20. so a little trial-and-error is needed.8. then experimental verification is essential.3. clause 9.8.8. which means estimating the deflection from the test results.8. clause 9. These are 20 for a simply-supported slab. the whole of the shear connection is provided by end anchorage. Clause 9.2(6). so the ‘design service load’ must be converted to a point load. Where the initial slip load in the tests is below the limit given in clause 9.2(8) If the end anchorage is provided by deformed ribs. In the tied-arch model proposed.2(8) seems likely to arise only where: • • • a high proportion of the shear connection is provided by welded studs its amount is established by calculation to clause 9.2(6) Clause 9. but situations arise where it could cause cracking.8. Longitudinal forces at mid-span are now known. and the strains εc and εt in the concrete and steel members can be found. The rules in clause 9.8. 9.CHAPTER 9. curve CB represents the arch rib. taking appropriate account of creep. For the composite member. Clause 9.1 and 9. clause 9.8. the changes in length of the members are et = εtL/2 and ec = εcL/2 so the deflection δ is given by 169 .3(a) consists of the effective area of the steel sheeting. Further comment is given under clause 9. Accurate calculation of deflection is difficult. and relates to the initial slip load found in tests – information which may not be available to the designer. Line AB denotes its centroid. applies to external spans only.2(3) refers to Section 5 for global analysis. COMPOSITE SLABS WITH PROFILED STEEL SHEETING FOR BUILDINGS Clause 7. The tie shown in Fig. because clause B. In Fig. or ‘end anchors should be provided’. Restraint of bending of slabs from the torsional stiffness of supporting members is usually ignored.1. so both the curve length and the chord length CB can be taken as L/2. The first refers to limits to the ratio of span to effective depth given in EN 1992-1-1.5.7.2. There is interaction between its assumed thickness hc and the lever arm ha.8.

The cross-section assumed for the sheeting satisfies the condition of clause 9. it is assumed that the reinforcement above the supporting beams.1: two-span continuous composite slab Data It is assumed that A252 mesh is provided (As = 252 mm2/m). which affects the properties of the composite slab in hogging bending.2 are defined in clause 1.6. as follows: • • in regions where the beam resists hogging bending. Tied-arch model for deflection of a composite slab with an end anchorage δ/L = (εt + εc)(L/4ha) with both strains taken as positive numbers. but for flexure of the composite beam supporting the sheeting. as determined by resistance to distortional lateral buckling: As = 565 mm2/m and 12 mm bars at 200 mm spacing in other regions. for profiles of this type. The sheeting is provided in 6 m lengths. 9.1 for ‘narrowly spaced webs’.1.3. for this sheeting. as determined by resistance to longitudinal shear: As ≥ 213 mm2/m. For a building 9 m wide. At the outset. For simplicity. they are hc = 75 mm (concrete above the ‘main flat surface’ of the sheeting) and hp = 70 mm (‘overall depth’ of the sheeting). or for in-plane shear in the slab.1.2. so several end-of-span conditions will be considered. It provides shear connection by embossments. is not less than that determined in Example 6. From Fig. 170 .7 on the two-span beam. hc – 15 mm. two assumptions have to be made that affect the verification of a composite slab: • • whether construction will be unpropped or propped whether the spans are modelled as simply supported or continuous. there will also be spans where 3 m lengths of sheeting are used. it will be assumed that unpropped construction will be used wherever possible. resting on the sheeting. hc is the appropriate thickness. The properties of the concrete and reinforcement are as used in the worked example on a two-span beam in Chapters 6 and 7. This has 8 mm bars at 200 mm spacing. 9. Here.4(a). 9.1.0 m rather than 2. so no 3 m span can have sheeting continuous at both ends. the relevant thickness is. For flexure of the composite slab. the thickness of the slab. 9. in accordance with clause 9. 130 mm here.6) Details of the geometry assumed for this composite slab are shown in Fig. Their top-flange width is 190 mm.4(a).5 m. Thus.1(a). The spacing of the supporting composite beams is different. is less than hc + hp. Some of the design data used here have been taken from the relevant manufacturer’s brochure. These details satisfy all the requirements of clause 9. (D9.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 hc C C et cosec a d ha a A B A B et cot a ec et L/2 (a) (b) Fig. both ways. Its dimensions hc and hp in Fig. Example 9.2. 3. where further information on them is given.

86 mm. (a) Dimensions.2.85fcd 412 kN 0.4 x 51 x 27 162 e = 30 (c) (d) Fig. e = 30.32 N/mm2.3 of EN 1992-1-1. the design density of the reinforced concrete is 1950 kg/m3.5 = 2.1(7) of EN 1991-1-6:108 for fresh concrete the weight density should be increased by 1 kN/m3.95 × 9.3 mm above bottom of section. Elctm = 20. 9. 0. centre of area.4. bare-metal thickness. γM. 0. yield strength. Creep is allowed for by using n = 20. gk1 = 2. Properties of materials and profiled sheeting Lightweight-aggregate concrete: grade LC25/28.81 × 0. Mpa = 6. plastic moment of resistance in hogging and sagging bending.6). (d) Second moment of area. weight. plastic neutral axis.11.4. ep = 33 mm above bottom of section (see Fig.9 (nom.10 kN/m2.5/19. Reinforcement: fsk = 500 N/mm2.) 26 26 164 136 (b) 30. Ea = 210 kN/mm2. 10–6Iy.11 kN/m2 171 . sagging. These checks will be simplified here by making conservative assumptions. p = 0. p = 1. hogging Some of the design checks on a composite slab are usually satisfied by wide margins. The dead weight of the floor is gk1 = 1. area.105 m3/m2. 9.1.7 kN/mm2.5(1)). p = 350 N/mm2. Rd.105 = 2. so for initial loading on the sheeting. sagging. fsd = 435 N/mm2.01 kN/m2 From Note 2 to clause 4.85fcd = 14. (b) Mpl. n0 = 10.2(11)). Composite slab: 130 mm thick.01 × 20. 0. which is assumed to include the sheeting.CHAPTER 9. Ap = 1178 mm2/m. (c) Second moment of area.9 mm. Loading for profiled sheeting From clause 11.18 kN m/m – this value is assumed to take account of the effect of embossments (clause 9. second moment of area. 0.0.548 mm4/m. fyk. flctm = 2. COMPOSITE SLABS WITH PROFILED STEEL SHEETING FOR BUILDINGS A252 mesh 200 60 15 55 48 29 0. Composite slab. volume of concrete.3 (a) 49 48 27 100 27 28 1178 252 51. Profiled sheeting: nominal thickness including zinc coating. ρ £ 1800 kg/m3.2 for all loading (clause 5. 0.2 N/mm2.

5.10 0 0.35 and γF.2 of EN 1991-1-6. The mounding of concrete during placing is referred to in clause 9.): qk = 7. Here.9 × 0.48 7. clause 9. maximum 2.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Table 9.38 Characteristic. and a 190 mm steel flange. the minimum width of bearing of the sheeting on a steel top flange is 50 mm.3.4. as ‘10% of the self weight of the concrete.3(2).350/÷3 whence VRd = 74.00 9. using γF. g = 1. minimum 0. The loads per unit area are summarized in Table 9. although its clause 4.0 kN/m2. so there is no need to consider bending moments in the continuous slab. Loadings per unit area of composite slab (kN/m2) Type of load During concreting Sheeting and concrete Imposed load Total For composite slab Slab and floor finish Imposed load Total For deflection of composite slab (frequent) Characteristic.2(1) of EN 1991-1-6 gives the actions from personnel and equipment.00 3.35 × 2. qk will be taken as 1.7 webs of depth 61 mm per metre width of sheeting. Rd.1.1(1)(b).86 m Hence. minimum 0.36 10. MEd = 4.11 1.45 kN m/m This is only 72% of Mpl. The National Annex may specify a different value. Variable load (including partitions.48 = 5.9 NA Ultimate. Assuming an effective support at the centre of this width. maximum 2. Verification of sheeting Ultimate limit state From clause 9. but not in EN 1991-1-6. to demonstrate the method of calculation. EN 12812115 may also be relevant.19 + 0.49 0. etc.75 and not more than 1.49 0 2.11 2.2.05 = 2.49 0.85 1. or to check rotation capacity to clause 9.43 = 6.0 kN/m2.3 kN/m 172 .2(1) refers to clause 4. the effective length of a simply-supported span is 3. but not less than 0.36 0 3.13 0 0. q = 1.7 × 7 + 0.35 3.1. services.2.35 × 1.50 4. their shear resistance is given by EN 1993-1-3 as (61/55)VRd = 6.22 kN/m There are 6.11.3.13 3.10 2.11.5 13.2(1).0 – 0.862/8 = 4.1(2) refers to ‘storage of materials’.11.48 Ultimate. Clause 4. qk. at an angle cos–1 55/61 to the vertical.7 × 61 × 0.01 + 0. Excluding effects of continuity.36 NA For construction loading. for vertical shear: VEd = 4. Loading for composite slab Floor finish (permanent): gk2 = 0.48 kN/m2. In the absence of buckling.5 kN/m2’.

M1 = 1. is Fy. The spans should be taken as slightly longer than 2.2(1). Hence. COMPOSITE SLABS WITH PROFILED STEEL SHEETING FOR BUILDINGS The slenderness of each web is 61/0.7 mm. but if the concrete in the first span has already hardened.84 m. is 0.2 mm For fresh concrete.6 (M1 + M2)/M0)] where the hogging end moments are respectively M1 and M2. The tensile force in the sheeting. that the deflection δ at the centre of a span is δ = δ0[1 – 0.01 kN/m on one span and 0.23 kN/m2 This increases the deflection to 16 × 2.7[1 – 0.864 × 1000/(384 × 210 × 0. δ = 5wL4/(384EaIy) = 5 × 2.5 = 16. but VEd is so far below VRd. M0 = 2.13 kN m. d = 1178 × 0.13/2.10 kN/m on the other. and so exceeds span/180. this is increased to 15. and δ0 and M0 are the deflection and mid-span moment of the span when the end moments are zero. The deflection is less than span/180.01 × 2.2 = 29 mm The lever arm is (D9.7 × 0. when at yield.16)] = 11.93 m It can be shown by elastic analysis of a continuous beam of uniform section.8) (D9.16 kN m. From elastic analysis for a span of 2.5 mm When the other span is cast. The loadings are then 2. The worst case is where a span is simply-supported. the reduction is small. propping should be used during construction. allowance should be made for ponding if the deflection exceeds 1/10th of the slab thickness (13 mm).7) 173 .01 = 17. that no calculation is needed. The appropriate length is (2. for fresh concrete. δ = 16. to allow for the hogging curvature over the width of the central support.CHAPTER 9. The most adverse condition occurs when the concrete in one span hardens (with no construction load present) before the other span is cast.0 mm From clause 9.86 + 3.2(5) applies. as is usual for the construction stage. Its weight.0)/2 = 2. p = Ap fyp.35 = 412 kN/m The depth of slab in compression is 412/14. so clause 9. Deflection A note to clause 9.9 = 68. The specified thickness of the additional concrete is 0. as it does here.3.7δ.5/19. Then.6 × (1.016 × 20. Properties of the composite slab Plastic resistance moment For sagging bending. the plastic neutral axis is likely to be above the sheeting. this deflection is reduced. which is close to the limit at which buckling must be considered.7.5 = 0.2 × 20. It follows that where the sheeting is not continuous at either end of a 3 m span. M2 = 0 and δ0 = 16. The effects of continuity at one end of a span are now considered.93 m.34/2.548) = 15. with uniformly distributed loading.7 mm which is span/161.6(2) recommends that the deflection should not exceed span/180.

9. If it is found to be excessive.5 mm. the transformed width of concrete is 1000/20. propped construction should be used for the composite slab.085 = 35 kN m/m (D9.1. For an elastic neutral axis at depth x (Fig.1 in EN 1990. account should also be taken of their deflection (Example 7.4 of EN 1992-1-1. The ψ1 factor for this combination depends on the floor loading category. Deflection is a reversible limit state.93 m.4(b)). This value is not the total deflection.9 kN/m. Ultimate limit states: flexure From Table 9.5. Thus. Clause 9. for which a note to clause 6. From Table 9.6 mm.4 in that clause gives the limiting ratio of span to effective depth for an end span as 26. the maximum and minimum loadings are 5.8. assuming 15% of each span to be cracked.2 = 49 mm/m. so the transformed width of concrete is 49 × 162/300 = 27 mm/m For a neutral axis at height x above the bottom of the slab (Fig. 9.38 and 0.9 × 2.548 + 1178 × 0.4 mm.492/3= 5. the neutral axis almost coincides with the centre of area of the sheeting.5 = 15 mm which is span/195. For a simply-supported loaded span of 2. the value for ‘shopping’ or ‘congregation’ areas. Table 7.4(c)).53 mm4/m For hogging bending with sheeting present.3(2) of EN 1990 recommends use of the frequent combination. 9. MEd = 13. The depth to the centroid of the sheeting is 100 mm. The region above the central support is likely to be cracked. and with 0.4(d)).3. A more accurate calculation for the two-span slab.5 + 3.3 – 29/2 = 85 mm (Fig. respectively. first moments of area give 1178(100 – x) = 49x2/2 whence x = 49 mm.1 = 29. Hence. and the condition is not satisfied.5 to 0. Hence 10–6Iy = 0.47 mm4/m Verification of the composite slab Deflection This is considered first. For a simply-supported span. the deflection is 4. each trough in the sheeting is replaced by a rectangle of width 162 mm. so Mpl.1). if cast unpropped. so the ratio is 2. it ranges from 0.932/8 = 14. is δtotal = 11. There is one trough per 300 mm.48 kN/m on the other span. and is here taken as 0. It refers to clause 7. Rd = 412 × 0. the total deflection of the slab.2(4) gives conditions under which a check on deflection may be omitted.0512 + 49 × 0.7.1. with Iy = 5.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 130 – 30. 252(82 – x) = 1178(x – 30) + 27 x (x/2) whence x = 30.93/0.9) Second moments of area For sagging bending. From Table A1.48 kN/m. gives the deflection of the fully loaded span as 3.63/3) × 10–6 = 1.53 × 106 mm4/m. as it sometimes governs the design. In considering whether it is acceptable.9 kN m 174 .9.548 + (252 × 51. and 10–6Iy = 0.42 + 27 × 30. as it is relative to the levels of the supporting beams. the maximum loading is 13.

Treating the sheeting as the ‘reinforcement’. However.7. that clause requires the provision of reinforcement to clause 9.8. from clause 9. which far exceeds VEd.2(5). Rd = bdp /γVS[(mAp/bLs) + k] where dp is the depth to the centroidal axis of the sheeting. or 0. are now compared with the data for this example.3(4).25. This gives a formula for the resistance in terms of the ‘area of tensile reinforcement’. which are given in parentheses.8. Longitudinal shear resistance by the partial-connection method In Example 11.5 refers to clause 6. that there is no need. clause 9. The shear properties of this sheeting are determined and discussed in Examples 11.2 of EN 1992-1-1.1(1) is for ‘continuous’ slabs.7.3(5).10) Other conditions for the use of this result in design to EN 1994-1-1.CHAPTER 9. which is required to extend a certain distance beyond the section considered. COMPOSITE SLABS WITH PROFILED STEEL SHEETING FOR BUILDINGS This is so far below the plastic moment of resistance. This slab can be assumed to satisfy the condition of clause 9. Where it is necessary to consider continuity. found above. Serviceability limit state – cracking Clause 9. and γVS is the partial safety factor. if any spans are constructed propped. Rd = 28.2% of the area of concrete ‘on top of the steel sheet’.7. For a simply-supported span.73 m.7. 100 mm.5 × 13.1(2): to have been designed as simply supported in accordance with clause 9. and that the values for use in the m–k method are m = 184 N/mm2 and k = 0. Rd = 0.7. From clause 9. based on clause B. Vertical shear Clause 9. It is assumed that tests have shown that the sheeting provides ‘ductile’ shear connection to clause 9. The sheeting is unlikely to satisfy this condition at an end support.3 is applicable.0530 N/mm2.2 on global analysis and clause 9. so the area required is 150 mm2/m. 1178 mm2/m.3(3). To control cracking above intermediate supports. and A252 mesh is not sufficient.9 kN/m For the two-span layout. then the required area is doubled. it will be a little higher at the internal support.1 and 11.2(4) on resistance to hogging bending are applicable.3.0 kN/m. which must not be exceeded by the vertical shear in the slab. the design shear resistance is Vl.144 N/mm2 (D9.2 and Appendix B. but its anchorage has already been confirmed by the check on longitudinal shear. to reduce deflections. For this purpose. the mean concrete thickness is relevant.1. so that clause 9. is 0. with indicating compliance: 175 .4.4. with a recommended value of 1. for unpropped construction. These values give: Vl. VEd ª 1. it is assumed that there is no end anchorage.8. Ls is span/4. for this check.1(4). and the A252 mesh used here is sufficient. the clause gives the resistance to vertical shear as 49 kN/m. but clearly will not exceed 28 kN/m. Ap is the cross-sectional area of breadth b of the sheeting.2 it is deduced from tests on slabs with the sheeting used here that its design shear strength was τu. 35 kN m/m. The amount required.2. This is close to 75 mm. to consider continuity or the resistance to hogging bending.7.9 = 20. Longitudinal shear by the m–k method For longitudinal shear.

MRd(x).93 m. assumed to act on the composite member. The parabolic bending-moment diagram is plotted.3(8). ) concrete density. for a half span. m = 0.3(7) it is necessary to show that throughout the span (coordinate x) the curve of design bending moment. which is a function of the degree of shear connection. Nc.144 × 1000x = 144x kN/m From equation (D9. Design partial-interaction diagram (a) (b) (c) (d) thickness of sheeting ≥ 0. Rd. The test results on thinner slabs led to a higher value of τu. #). with Lx = x) is Nc = τu. ?) (e) slab thickness.7.9 mm.8 × 376 = 301 N/mm2 (fyp = 350 N/mm2. the design ultimate load for the slab is 13. η(x). item (e). d = 412 kN/m The length of shear span needed for full interaction is therefore 176 . The verification for flexure assumed simply-supported spans of 2. 9. Rd given in equation (D9.9 kN m/m.18 1. so its effects can be ignored. The concrete strength.8 = 23. From equation (9. as in tests 1 to 4 (h = 130 mm. Section 9 gives no guidance on what allowance should be made. The difference in slab thickness. These two curves are now constructed. MEd(x). fck ≥ 0.8fcm = 0. including coating (t = 0.7. for differences between test and design values of these variables.5 1. takes no account of subsequent loss of moisture.5 h after mixing: 1944 kg/m3 (design density £ 1800 kg/m3.8 fyp.8 × 29. f = Ap fyp.27MEd A 0 0. is significant. 9. h = 170 mm. Design partial-interaction diagram To satisfy clause 9.8 N/mm2 (C25/30 concrete.0 1.3.8) in clause 9. in Fig. Rdbx = 0. item (d). at mid-span. is acceptable. is small. The density. max as 14. Its effect is discussed more generally in Appendix B.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 M (kN m/m) B 20 E D C MRd 10 MEd Mpa = 6.1.2.e.86 mm. From Table 9.9 kN/m2. if any.5. It is assumed that the value for τu. measured at an early age. item (b). and the difference of density. nowhere lies above the curve of design resistance. measured 1.5 x (m) Fig. ) concrete strength.5. the compressive force in the slab at distance x m from an end support (i. plus coating. Clause B. for reasons explained in Example 11. fyp ≥ 0. which gives MEd.7) can be used here.1(3) defines concrete density and slab thickness as ‘variables to be investigated’.4). ) steel yield strength.

From equation (D9.151x2 The curve MRd (x) is plotted as AB in Fig. This result can be compared with that from the m–k method.144x × (82 + 1.18 so x ≥ 1.72 – 2.570 m From Fig.7x = 7. the plastic resistance is MRd = Ncz + Mpr = 0.CHAPTER 9.7 = 0. 9. With partial interaction. as before: Mpr = 1. as before.27 (curve 0DE). because the partial shear-connection method involves the bendingmoment distribution.151x2 for 0.5). Rd is probably too low because the test span was too long. Shear failure thus occurs along a length of 1. f = 412/144 = 2.05x) + 7. It lies above the curve 0C for MEd at all cross-sections. f replaced by Nc and Mpa = 6.47 m).5.18 × (1 – 144x/412) = 7. while the m–k method does not. as follows. showing that there is sufficient resistance to longitudinal shear. 9.93/2 = 25.18 = 6. The scale factor is found to be 1.54/2.6. equation (9. These are normally prepared by specialists working on behalf of the manufacturer. It is concluded in Example 11. COMPOSITE SLABS WITH PROFILED STEEL SHEETING FOR BUILDINGS Ls.6) with Nc.144x × (82 + 1.57 £ x £ 1.3 mm. Curve 0C is scaled up until it touches curve AB.0 m adjacent to an end support.05x mm The reduced bending resistance of the composite slab is given by equation (9. The two methods therefore give consistent results. with contact at x = 1.7x £ 6.3) × 144x/412 = 82 + 1.25 × 6.9 kN/m This is 8% lower than the 28 kN/m found by the m–k method. 177 . They are relevant to the preparation of design charts or tables for composite slabs using sheeting of a particular thickness and profile. and is used here for simplicity.57 m. so full interaction is not achieved in a span of this length.18 kN m/m. MRd = 0.2 that its result for τu. The calculations summarized in this example illustrate provisions of EN 1994-1-1 that are unlikely to be needed for routine design. The vertical reaction at that support is then VEd = 1.27 × 13.0 m.05x) + 6.47 m For x < 0.9 × 2.8x + 0. With h = 130 mm. this value gives a slightly conservative result for z. No general comparison of them is possible.86 m This exceeds span/2 (1.11x + 0. the depth of the full-interaction stress block in the slab is xpl = 29 mm. for this example.72 – 2.18 + 11. ep = 33 mm and e = 30.72 + 9.9) for the lever arm gives z = 130 – 29/2 – 33 + (33 – 30.

3 Annex A is needed for the application of clause 8. As in EN 1993-1-8.2. clause A. Scope This annex supplements the provisions on stiffness of steel joints in clause 6.11 of EN 1993-1-8.104 A. For a known lever arm z between the tensile and compressive forces across the joint.CHAPTER 10 Annex A (Informative). It is informed by and generally consistent with two reports prepared on behalf of the steel industry.1(1) the coefficient ks.1 Clause A.1) Clause A.116 The coefficients have been calibrated against test results.24 Its scope is limited (clause A. stiffness coefficients ki are determined (clause A. much of which is recent.2. It covers conventional joints in regions where the longitudinal slab reinforcement is in tension.1(2)). only k1 and k2 are modified here.3 of EN 1993-1-8. such that when multiplied by Young’s elastic modulus for steel. r in terms of the bending moments MEd. the result is a conventional stiffness (force per unit extension or compression). stiffnesses of components are combined in the usual way.1(1) Clause A.1.1(3) A. 2.39. Of these.1(1)).1(3)). which has the following clauses: • • • Scope Stiffness coefficients Deformation of the shear connection Clause A. and the use of steel contact plates in compression.1.2.1(1) gives formulae for Clause A. 1 and MEd. Stiffness coefficients The background to this clause is available. For longitudinal reinforcement in tension. to allow for steel contact plates and for the encasement of a column web in concrete (clause A.1.2 of this guide. Clause A. Its content is based on the best available research. As in EN 1993-1-8. with dimensions of length.1(2) Stiffness coefficients k1 to k16 are defined in Table 6. A. It is ‘informative’ because the ‘component’ approach to the design of steel and composite joints continues to be developed. the rotational stiffness is easily found from these coefficients.2 Clause A. shown in Fig. Stiffness of joint components in buildings This chapter corresponds to Annex A in EN 1994-1-1.1 and . Those relevant to composite joints are listed in Section 8. for example: k = k1 + k2 1/k = 1/k1 + 1/k2 (for two components in parallel) (for two components in series) (D10.

r = As.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 b 2 b1 and b2. 1 ≥ MEd. with simplified values in clause 5. 1 £ 1 However. 1) in Fig.2 Concrete encasement Encasement in concrete increases the stiffness of the column web in shear.3(9) of EN 1993-1-8. the stiffness coefficients ks. The figure shows that when M2 = M1.5 0 –1 (a) 0 1 1 M2 / M1 M2 / M1 (b) l2 Fig.3(8).2. For the simplified βs.2.1 for a single-sided joint. increasing to 3. l l1 b1 and b2. In clause A.1. they are plotted against the moment ratio M2/M1 (using this notation for MEd.38Avc/βz 180 . The transformation parameters β1 and β2 allow for the effects of unequal bending moments applied to the pair of connections on either side of a column. which is given for an uncased web in EN 1993-1-8 as k1 = 0. 2. precise 5 3.2.2. and λ1 and λ2 (for the connections on sides 1 and 2 of the column) are functions of β1 and β2.1.1(b). Clause A. this length for connection 1 is h/2.1(a). It is the extension of a length λh of reinforcement that is assumed to contribute to the flexibility of the joint.1.2. The range covered by EN 1993-1-8 is –1 £ MEd.2. r for connection 2 becomes negative for M2 < 0. as shown in Fig. β. 2 < 0 are outside the scope of EN 1994-1-1. The sign convention in EN 1993-1-8 is that both moments are positive when hogging.2. The flexibility 1/ks. Based on both the precise and the simplified values for the βs given in EN 1993-1-8. r in Table A. (a) Transformation parameter. represented by λ1 and λ2. Similarly. The ‘infinite’ stiffness of a steel contact plate (clause A. and composite joints with MEd. they are discontinuous at M2/M1 = 0 and 1.1) is zero. The latter are discontinuous functions of MEd. 8.1 are based on reinforcement in tension. 2/MEd. This is the value in Table A.1 Clause A.2.3.2. b 1 0. r/λh (D10.5M1. 10.2. Flexibility of reinforcement.6 For precise b For approx. A typical stiffness coefficient is ks. the stiffness of a column web panel in shear is reduced below the value in EN 1993-1-8 because the force applied by a contact plate may be more concentrated than would occur with other types of end-plate connection. 10. with MEd.1. approx. the stiffness for a web in transverse compression has been reduced in clause A. (b) Flexibility of reinforcement.2) where h is the depth of the steel section of the column.2 replaces 0. The concrete slab is assumed to be fully cracked.2) simply means that one term in an equation of type (D10. 10. 2/MEd. where the value 0. 2 and MEd. Subscripts 1 and 2 are used here also for the properties of the connections on which these moments act. for M1 ≥ M2 Fig.7 in EN 1993-1-8.6h when M2 = 0.2 Clause A. 1. respectively. They are given in clause 5.2.

The stiffnesses ki shown in Fig.38Avc/βz It was shown in Example 8. can vary widely.3) Example 10.117 They are based on linear partial-interaction theory for the shear connection. r. unlike the ki. to give the combined stiffness.6) to (A.2.3 is given in Appendix 3 of ECCS TC1139 and in COST-C1. c = 0. modified to give Sj.3. r)/Ksc ks. Deformation of the shear connection The background to the rather complex provisions of clause A. It also shows that.8PRk). is needed for elastic or elastic–plastic global analysis. to pairs of studs in each trough.28) in Aribert. The rotational stiffness Sj.3 are now calculated. Clause A. for which the transformation parameter β is 1. Ksc is a conventional stiffness.2.1).3 Clause A.5) in clause A. The coefficient in the additional stiffness k2. the relationship with the stiffness of the steel web is similar to that for the web in shear. The definition of the stiffness of a shear connector in clause A. force per unit extension.4.3. The value 100 kN/mm is of the correct magnitude.3. ini.2 A. This stiffness is relevant only for unequal beam loading.2.26) and (7. but reduces to 0.3(3) assumes that the mean load per connector will be a little below the design strength. z.2) is unity.11 of EN 1993-1-8.3(3) Further comments on stiffness These are found in Chapter 8 and in the following example. ANNEX A (INFORMATIVE).6.118 Equation (A. the tests should ideally be ‘specific push tests’ to clause B. the connector modulus.9.2.13 for a contact plate.5 for an end plate.2. 10. and an example in Johnson81 uses 150 kN/mm for 19 mm studs.1(1) Clause A.7. may be preferred.1(1) has a similar form: k1.1: elastic stiffness of an end-plate joint 181 . both for finding the required rotation of the joint. r = Es/Ksc + 1/ks.3. is 543 mm. It may not apply.06(Ecm/Ea)bc hc/βz where Ecm/Ea is the modular ratio and bc hc is the area of concrete. but designs that are sensitive to its accuracy should be avoided.CHAPTER 10. as used in Example 6. r.33 mm (D10. Johnson and Buckby37 refer to a range from 60 kN/mm for 16 mm studs to 700 kN/mm for 25 mm square bar connectors.8) are derived as equations (7. Column web in shear From Table 6. In practice. Where the slab is composite. 100 kN/mm. so k1 = 0. The shear area of the column web is 3324 mm2. because of the more concentrated force. kslip ks. Clause A.3(2) can be rearranged as follows: 1/kslip ks. In fact. Its use is limited to slabs in which the reduction factor kt (clause 6. c is 0.0 (Fig. For the column web in compression (clause A. the approximate value given in clause A. Dimensions are shown in Figs 8. STIFFNESS OF JOINT COMPONENTS IN BUILDINGS The addition to k1 given in clause A. PRk/γVS (typically 0. 8. 1/ks. Equations (A.3. and for checking deflection of the beams. Formulae for the steel components are given in Table 6.3(4) for 19 mm studs. therefore.11 of EN 1993-1-8.2). this stiffness. r = (Ksc + Es ks.38 × 3324/543 = 2.8 and 8. k1 = 0.1 that the relevant lever arm.2(3). r This format shows that the flexibility Es/Ksc has been added to that of the reinforcement.

7beff. and dc = 240 – 2 × (21 + 17) = 164 mm so k2 = 0.6 × 245/44 = 8. wc twc /dc where beff. k5 = 0.7beff. Slab reinforcement in tension Let λh be the length of reinforcing bar assumed to contribute to the flexibility of the joint. so k4 = 0.50 mm Bolt in tension From Table 6. 10.11 of EN 1993-1-8. These are given in Table 6.2 mm (Fig.9 eff (tp /m)3 The smallest eff for the end plate was 213 mm (Example 8. 8. so eff = 146 mm. c.7 mm End plate in bending From Table 6.11 of EN 1993-1-8.9 where eff eff (tfc /m)3 = 2πm as above.6 and λ2 = 0. the width of the web. twc = 10 mm.9 mm. with m = 23.7 × 146 × 10/164 = 6. k4 = 0.5. and from Fig. The smallest is 2πm.9 × 146 × (17/23.1).1 (b) beams unequally loaded. Hence. k5 = 0. k10 = 1. 182 .1. wc is the smallest of the effective lengths eff found for the column T-stub. c. total 44 mm.22 mm Column flange in bending From Table 6.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Column web in compression.11 of EN 1993-1-8.9 × 213 × (12/33. is 248 mm.11 of EN 1993-1-8.2)3 = 51.11 of EN 1993-1-8.91 mm per row of two bolts. k3 = 0. k3 = 0. t. The tensile stress area is 245 mm2. unstiffened From Table 6. for which λ1 = λ2 = 0. t. 8. There are two cases: (a) beams equally loaded. k2 = 0.6 mm Column web in tension. From equation (D10.9. for which λ1 = 3. Hence.7 × 248 × 10/164 = 10.6As /Lb where Lb is the grip length (29 mm) plus an allowance for the bolt head and nut.2). beff. wc. so k10 = 1. unstiffened From Table 6.9)3 = 8. m = 33.9). from Fig. wc twc/dc From Example 8.4 of EN 1993-1-8.

r = As.924 mm (D10.8 second moment of area of steel beam: 10–6Ia = 337 mm4.3: • • • • hogging length of beam: = 0. red = ks. 6.88 × (543/325)/3.8 × 1. r /570) The symbol ks.660. Allowance will be made for the possible reduced stiffness of pairs of studs in a trough of sheeting by taking N. ks.15 × 12 = 1. red Æ ∞ (D10. ks. Research has found that the steel tension zone of the joint that resists the lower bending moment should be treated as rigid.8). r Æ •. red is used for the reduced value. For ks.778 From equation (A. N = 19. r kslip = 2. STIFFNESS OF JOINT COMPONENTS IN BUILDINGS ks.5 × 240) = 10.213. ANNEX A (INFORMATIVE). for joint BA. kslip = 0.88 – 2. r/Ksc) = 1/(1 + 210ks.85 studs From equation (A.6). 19. Ksc = Nksc /[ν – (ν – 1)(hs/ds)/(1 + ξ)] = 14. r = 1206 mm2 and h = 240 mm. kslip = 0.40 mm for the joint in span BC and ks. red is indeterminate.4 m length of beam each side of support B (see Fig.30).8 equivalent studs were spread along a 2.85 × 100/[3.88 From equation (A. whence ks.14 mm for beams equally loaded. ν = [(1 + ξ)Nksc ds2/EaIa]1/2 = [3.1.8/2.778 × 14. r(b) = 1206/(3.7). For ks. Deformation of the shear connection In the notation of clause A. the area of tension reinforcement was reduced from 1470 to 1206 mm2. r = 1. so in this case. This is an anomaly in the code. the number in length . but the shear connection is now assumed to be as before. ξ = Ea Ia /ds2Es As = 210 × 337/(0. It follows that ks. r /λh where As.40 mm. ks.05 mm. r = 10. This result is revised later.85 × 0.4) for joint 1.5). whence ks.4 = 14. In Example 6. Hence.8(a) distance of bars above centroid of steel beam: ds = 325 mm from Fig. r(b) Æ • for the joint in span AB.80 m distance of bars above centre of compression: hs = 543 mm from Fig. 8.05 mm for both joints.5) 183 .8 × 3252/(210 × 337)]1/2 = 3. r(a) = 1206/(0. In Example 8. as the equivalent number of single studs.100 × 1. kslip = 0.CHAPTER 10. 8.8 m. For ks. r is kslip = 1/(1 + Es ks. red = 0.3252× 200 × 1206) = 2. the reduction factor to be applied to ks.7.6 × 240) = 1.778] = 570 kN/mm From equation (A. unequal loading. For = 1.

3832)/(0. z = z2 and keq = kt. ini. steel = 210 × 0.44 + 1/10.44 mm Stiffness in compression Only the stiffness for the column web is required: k2 = 10. and keq = ks.543 m. red are different for the two joints. zeq = (0.439 = 3.27) = 48. ini = Ea zeq2/(1/keq+ 1/k2) = 210 × 0.9) Stiffness of joints. The equivalent lever arm is zeq = (ks. for the stiffness of the composite joint. and the values of ks.472 = 4. the stiffness represented by kt is ineffective for actions on the composite member. From equation (D10.383 m.14 + 1/10.44 × 0. from equations (D10.91 = 0. for both beams fully loaded The rules for assembly of stiffnesses in Table 6. red = 2.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Stiffness of joints. then from equations (D10.3.6) = 110 kN m/mrad For each joint during construction.10 of EN 1993-1-8 are extended on p. and ks.410 mm–1 kt = 2. ini.5 + 1/8. the end plates yield in tension.6 kN m/mrad (D10.44 × 0.924 × 0.096 = 0.3)). ks. Sj.5432/(1/2.924 mm. B3.4392/(1/2. BC = 210 × 0. 1/kt = 1/6.7).8).14 mm. ini = Ea z12/(1/ks. with z1 and z2 as above.1 kN m/mrad (D10.6 +1/0.630/1. red + 1/k2) = 210 × 0.33 + 1/10. red z12 + kt z22)/(ks.439 m keq = 1.436 = 0.8) becomes Sj.924 × 0. zeq = z1 and keq = ks.8 kN m/mrad (D10. Stiffness in tension Stiffnesses 3.5432/(1/2.096/0.44 + 1/10. red = 0. 4.6) and (D10.8). must now be included.472 m The equivalent stiffness in tension is keq = (ks. ini.436/0. red z1 + kt z2) = 0. red = 2. the initial stiffness of each composite joint is Sj. BC = 210 × 0.7) (D10.22 + 1/51. Sj.6) = 146 kN m/mrad (D10.11) If kt = 0.4722/(1/4.1 of EN 1993-1-8.12) 184 . zeq = z1. or it has yielded in the tension zone. Then. and equation (D10.44 mm The lever arm for kt is z2 = 0.10) (D10. so Sj.543 + 2. kt = 0.3832/(1/2.8) (D10. red z1 + kt z2)/zeq = 2. The lever arm for the reinforcement is z1= 0.6) If.3). 5 and 10 are in series (see Fig. Stiffness of joints From clause 6. red = 0.383) = 0.6 mm.6 +1/3. so that kt = 0.33 + 1/10. for imposed load on span BC only The flexibility of the column web in shear. For these.14 mm.7).7 of ECCS TC1139 to allow for the slab reinforcement. during construction. 8.924) = 38.6) and (D10.7 + 1/8. For the connection in span BC.989/2.5432 + 2.6) = 61. There are two cases: either the end plate is elastic. 1/k1 (equation (D10.27 mm Including 1/k1 in equation (D10.

13) This use of equation (D10. of stiffness k1 (2.1. and equation (D10. ini.13) are repeated in Table 8. The resulting increase in the hogging moment at B in span BC is small. then zeq = z1 and keq Æ •. for use in Example 8. and hence increases the hogging bending moment at this point. BA = 210 × 0.CHAPTER 10. STIFFNESS OF JOINT COMPONENTS IN BUILDINGS For the joint in span AB.33 mm here). ini. BA therefore exceeds 118 kN m/rad. causes clockwise rotation of end B of span AB.8) gives Sj. The shear deformation of the column web panel.5432/(1/2.33 + 1/10.6) = 118 kN m/mrad (D10.8) where there is shear in the web panel includes an approximation that leads to a small overestimate of the deflection of span BC.1. Results (D10.8) to (D10. The effective stiffness Sj. ANNEX A (INFORMATIVE). 185 . and so is the associated decrease in the mid-span deflection. with ks. red Æ •.

There are many national standards. its use has been the principal basis world-wide for the design of composite slabs for longitudinal shear.107 does not distinguish sufficiently between profiles that fail in a ductile manner and those that fail suddenly.1. evidence has accumulated over the past 20 years that both this test and the UK’s version of the push test for shear connectors have significant weaknesses. .CHAPTER 11 Annex B (Informative). General Annex B is ‘informative’. in BS 5400: Part 5. This is one reason why the UK’s push test has survived so long in its present form. This method. Existing design rules for both shear connection and composite slabs are based mainly on test data obtained over many decades using various procedures and types of test specimen. Re-testing of the scores (if not hundreds) of types of composite slabs used in existing structures is impracticable. and does not exploit the use of end anchorage or the ability of many modern profiles to provide partial shear connection. and there is some international consensus on details of the m–k test for resistance of composite slabs to longitudinal shear. not ‘normative’. for example. It costs more. The new push test (clause B. most research workers have concluded that the empirical m–k test procedure should be phased out. in principle.2) has been in drafts of Eurocode 4 for 15 years. From the note to clause B. When the specification for an existing test is changed. which are not yet available. A full set of m–k tests for a new profile is also expensive and time-consuming. past practice should. for which there has been no international standard. and so does not raise questions about past practice. as given in BS 5950: Part 4. Standard tests B. One of the objectives of standard tests is to provide guidance to designers in situations where calculation models are not sufficient. be re-evaluated. Almost all non-commercial push tests since that time have used slabs wider than the 300 mm of the specimen that is defined. they should be given in a European standard or in guidelines for European technical approvals.82 The new test generally gives higher results. because test procedures for products are strictly outside the scope of a design code. However. and was based on research work in the preceding decade.1(1).119 However. These restrict the development of new products. but gives results that are more consistent and relevant to the behaviour of connectors in composite beams and columns. This commonly occurs for two components of composite structures: shear connectors and profiled steel sheeting. For profiled sheeting.113. typically by giving results that are over-conservative (push test) or misleading (m–k test).

.79 This problem can be avoided by appropriate detailing. with reference to Fig.1. δ.3. P. and other changes based on recent experience of its use. as shown by curve CH in Fig. It has been 188 .3 of BS 5950: Part 3. to shear force per connector.6. and have little influence on ultimate strength except in slender composite columns.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Clause B.3. A ‘standard’ specimen is specified in clause B.2(2) and Fig. B. A metricated version of this test is given in BS 5400: Part 5. the strengths of the materials in a test specimen should equal the characteristic values specified for the application concerned. which were first standardized in the UK in 1965.2.131 without comment on the need to modify it when profiled sheeting is present.2. which commonly occur at external walls of buildings and adjacent to large internal holes in floors. or with haunches complying with 6.2(1) Clause B. 11. The test method is intended also for use with the more rational partial-interaction design of composite slabs. specific push tests should be used.2(1) that separate ‘specific’ push tests should be done to determine the resistance of connectors in columns and in L-beams. 6. Push tests to clause B.2. compared with the BS test Welded headed studs are the only type of shear connector for which large numbers of tests have been done in many countries. No reliable method has been found for deducing such curves from the results of tests on composite beams. The influence of cracking of concrete may be assumed to be allowed for in the test procedures..3 therefore sets out in detail a method of testing that can be used with what is essentially the existing m–k procedure.5.5. The standard test is intended for use where the shear connectors are used in T-beams with a concrete slab of uniform thickness.4.67 Stark and van Hove72 and Oehlers120) are based on these tests. and a specimen for ‘specific push tests’ is defined in more general terms in clause B.2. Clause B. done.2.4 (on the dimensions of haunches). or to limit the range of acceptable measured strengths of a material so that any adjustment would be negligible. … In other cases. Properties of materials Ideally.2.3 (on longitudinal splitting) and 6. Tests on shear connectors General The property of a shear connector that is needed for design is a curve that relates longitudinal slip.2 and B. The principal differences between the ‘standard’ tests of EN 1994-1-1 and BS 5400 (the ‘BS test’) are summarized below. because the slab and reinforcement ‘should be either as given in [the code] .1. Tests that fully reproduce the effects of shrinkage and creep of concrete are rarely practicable.2(2) It can be inferred from clause B. and reasons for the changes are given. B.2(3). This is rarely.4.6.7 and B. mainly because bending resistance is insensitive to the degree of shear connection. or as in the beams for which the test is designed’.2. although a connector very close to a free edge of a slab is likely to be weaker and have less slip capacity than one in a T-beam.5. so all reported studies of push testing (e.2.2(1)). B. This is rarely possible in composite test specimens that include three different materials. in CP117: Part 1. This test has two variants. though with a tighter specification relating to the mode of failure. which is to be preferred for reasons given in comments on clauses 9. see Johnson and Oehlers.4(a). This distinction is maintained in EN 1994-1-1 (clause B. Almost all the load-slip curves on which current practice is based were obtained from push tests.6. if ever.g. but these effects can normally be predicted once the behaviour in a short-term test has been established.2. Relevant provisions are given within clauses B. of the type shown in Fig. and is the reason for the requirements of clauses 6.82 and referred to in clause 5. It is therefore necessary to adjust resistances found by testing.

resulting in a high bond with 450 £ fsk £ 550 N/mm2 Steel section: HE 260 B or 254 × 254 × 89 kg U.C.1) is 260 × 260 mm. This enables reinforcement to be better anchored. cf. many specimens were cast with the slabs vertical. not to reproduce the reinforcement provided in a beam. In the past. and so avoids low results due to splitting. ANNEX B (INFORMATIVE).2.3(1) 189 . This enables redistribution of load to occur. 11. because it has very small slabs. which in effect prevents redistribution of load from one slab to the other92 and so gives the resistance of the weaker of the two pairs of connectors. Clause B. prone to split longitudinally because the mild steel reinforcement is light and poorly anchored. it is necessary to separate inherent variability from that due to differences in the test specimens. but are larger (650 × 600 mm. so the transverse stiffness provided by the bars is at least 2. the transverse restraint from the in-plane stiffness of the slab is greater than in a push specimen. so that the test gives the mean resistance of eight stud connectors.76 To obtain realistic characteristic values. (4) The flange of the steel section is wider (> 250 mm. with the risk that the concrete just below the connectors would be poorly compacted. Test specimen for the standard push test (dimensions in mm) found that the results of the tests are widely scattered. The changes from this test are as follows: (1) The slabs have the same thickness. the methods of casting and testing. Fig. In T-beams. which has little influence on the result.3(1)). STANDARD TESTS P Cover 15 180 180 180 35 150 150 150 150 250 100 35 30 200 150 260 150 200 200 250 Recess optional Bedded in mortar or gypsum 100 600 Reinforcement: ribbed bars. B. ∆ 10 mm. The HE 260B section (Fig. which enables wider block or angle connectors to be tested.5 times the previous value. The reinforcement is intended to simulate this restraint. B. 93 kg/m.1. and the lateral spacing of pairs of studs is standardized. (3) Shear connectors are placed at two levels in each slab. It has connectors at only one level. 146 mm).2.1. Limits are given in Fig.CHAPTER 11. (5) Each concrete slab must be cast in the horizontal position. 10 mm. instead of four mild steel bars of the same diameter. (2) The transverse reinforcement is 10 high-yield ribbed bars per slab. and better simulates the redistribution that occurs within the shear span of a beam. cf. and the ultimate tensile strength of the connectors. The bond properties of the reinforcement are more important than the yield strength. as it would be in practice (clause B. The BS specimen was probably designed to give results at the lower edge of the band of uncertainty that existed 40 years ago. 460 × 300 mm).

This repeated loading ensures that if the connector tested is susceptible to progressive slip. to enable the characteristic slip and uplift to be determined.2.3(3) and B. This appears in clause B. Let Pm be the mean and Pmin the lowest of the three measured resistances per connector. in which the ‘10% from the mean’ condition was satisfied. It is necessary to rely also on the extensive past experience of push testing.4(4)). of reducing the lowest of the three results by 10%.1) where fck is the specified strength in practice (clause B. this will become evident.3(4). Stresses in concrete adjacent to shear connectors are so high that.5(1). three tests are conducted on nominally identical specimens to determine the characteristic resistance PRk for concrete and connector material of specified strengths fck and fu.2. and fut be the measured ultimate strength of the connector material.7fck Ecm)0.29αd 2( fck Ecm)0.3(3) Clause B.8 (D11.4(1)). Pm. from clause B. with many different types of test specimen.4(1) Clause B.3) Clause B.4(4) Clause B.5 (D11.2.2.5 normally used for concrete. Clause D. as explained below. details of concrete curing are specified.5/γV In the push test.8.8. would severely penalize a three-test series.5(1).7fck The resistance of a stud is usually found from equation (6.2.2. the two strength tests must be done using the same type of specimen.25.5(2) refers to Annex D of EN 1990 (Informative) for the procedure to be followed if the scatter of results exceeds the 10% limit.2) when γV = 1. PRd = 0. It can be deduced from clause D.4(3) Clause B.86 £ fcm /fcu £ 1. and the likelihood that the quality of the concrete in the laboratory may be higher than on site.3(5)). PRk = 0.3(4) (6) Unlike the BS test.4 is relevant. which took no account of prior knowledge.2. Most of the previous results were from research programmes. Clause D. significant local cracking and inelastic behaviour could occur. Then. in clauses B.29αd2(0. It is essentially fcm = 0.2.9Pmin (D11. If all three results are within 10% of Pm.5(1).6 £ fcm /fck £ 0.2. (9) Longitudinal slip and transverse separation are measured (clauses B. Condition (D11.19): PRd = 0.29αd 2(fck Ecm)0. Clause B.2.76 It has not been possible to establish the value of Vr. This shows that the purpose of condition (D11. fck is in effect replaced by 0. even at 40% of the failure load.2. have been found to be samples from seven different statistical populations. cylinder or cube. is mainly based on previous practice.1) is to compensate for the use of a γV factor of 1.4 that for a set 190 . The BS test does not require this.2.2. The BS test does not require this. The results for studs in profiled sheeting. for example. The corresponding rule for the BS test is 0.4(3) and B.5(1) Evaluation of results of push tests Normally. The method of clause B.4 then gives the characteristic resistance as a function of Pm and of Vr.2 where fcu is ‘the cube strength of the concrete in the beams’.8 of EN 1990 for the deduction of a characteristic value from a small number of test results. (8) The loading is cycled 25 times between 5 and 40% of the expected failure load (clause B.5/1.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Clause B. respectively. ‘the maximum coefficient of variation observed in previous tests’. then.7fck. For three tests it sets the condition that all results must be within 10% of the mean. For both codes.5/γV = 0.2.2. lower than the value 1. A method to clause D.8. (7) The strength of the concrete measured at the time the push test is done must satisfy 0.25.2.1) is now explained.

1(4) define the number of tests required. it is assumed that a manufacturer seeks to determine shear resistance for a new profile.9 = 1.2(6) and B.3. so from equation (D11. the method of clause B.5(3) finds application for connectors such as blocks with hoops. STANDARD TESTS of three results with the lowest 10% below the mean. This is appropriate where the resistance of a connector is governed by its own material.3. They are normally done by or for the manufacturer. Clause B.7. Number of tests The list of relevant variables in clause B. The classification of a connector as ductile (clause 6.4. Tests are needed for each new shape of profiled sheet. and concrete strengths.7. This is probably because the results of the BS test are rarely governed by the strength of the steel.1(5)) depends on its characteristic slip capacity. with both lightweight and normal-weight concrete. then.5(1)). From the definition of PRk (clause B.5(4). as the slabs are so likely to split. who will naturally be concerned to minimize their cost. loss of interlock occurring at the steel–concrete interface.1(1)) is to provide values for either the factors m and k for the ‘m–k method’. especially where lightweight aggregate is used. Clause B. Clause B.5(3) Clause B.2.3 and 9.2 implies that Vr = 11%.5(1)).3. In the BS test.1(2)).1(1) Clause B.2.3.1(3) and the concessions in clause B. and the BS result is corrected for the strength of the concrete. a ‘nominal’ strength Pu is calculated from Pu = (fck /fc)Pmin and.3. As an example. where the block resists most of the shear.2.1(2) Clause B.2(7)). It follows that a push test should not be terminated as soon as the maximum load is reached.3(3) on ductility.2 are all taken from the falling branches of the load–slip curves.CHAPTER 11.5(1) gives a penalty that applies when fut > fu.3. Resistance to longitudinal shear is difficult to predict theoretically.3.1(3) Clause B.1(4) 191 .3. or the longitudinal shear strength required for the partial shear connection method.3) the two methods give a similar relationship between Pmin and PRd.3. it is assumed that the new profile is found to satisfy clause 9.3. B.2. because fu is limited to 500 N/mm2 by clause 6. These procedures for verifying resistance to longitudinal shear are given in clauses 9.4.6. failure must be in longitudinal shear (clauses B.3. as the basis for design data for a range of sheet thicknesses. There is a 20% penalty for brittle behaviour (clause B. PRd = Pu /1. How many tests are required? In view of the penalty for brittle behaviour (clause B. and the strength of the material can exceed 600 N/mm2 for studs. but in practice the resistance of a connector can depend mainly on the strength of the concrete.2. In view of the purpose of the tests.25/0. slab thicknesses and spans.2. usually steel.5(1)).6.3. Comments on them are relevant here.7. The correction then seems over-conservative.3. There is no established method to calculate this resistance.1. so the methods of EN 1994-1-1 rely on testing.4 It so happens that 1. so the slips δu in Fig. all three test specimens will have reached a higher load. Their purpose (clause B. The partial-connection method is more Clause B. except that the Eurocode result is corrected for the strength of the steel. ANNEX B (INFORMATIVE).5(4) B. which is defined in clause B. Testing of composite floor slabs General The most usual mode of failure of a composite slab is by longitudinal shear. and the hoop resists most of the uplift. The tests also determine whether the shear connection is brittle or ductile (clause B.3. The pattern and height of indentations or embossments and the shape of the sheeting profile all have significant effect.1(1).

. . but that would not apply internationally. From clause B. . .1(4)). . Where a new profile is a development from an existing range. . . so the number rises from 32 to 48. (2) (d) Coating: this should be standardized. . . As interlock is dependent on the local bending of individual plate elements in the sheeting profile. The main conclusions from Appendix B of this guide are as follows. and is recommended. even more tests would be needed. . . . . which would be more flexible . These requirements are not defined. The materials standards listed in clause 3. . tests are in groups of six. . its test methods ‘may be assumed to meet the basic requirements’ of the relevant design method for longitudinal shear. given in Appendix B of this guide. . . and. . . . . . . . .7. are summarized below. to find the minimum number of values needed for each one. respectively. . . . . they have to be inferred. . . mainly from Annex B. . the number of tests needed for a full set. . including any overlap details. . interpolation between results from tests on slabs of the same shear span and two thicknesses is valid for slabs of intermediate thickness for the m–k method. Annex B may eventually be superseded by a European standard on the determination of the shear resistance of composite slabs. . . . . .DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 versatile than the m–k method. . must be persuaded that the evidence presented does satisfy the ‘basic requirements’ of one or both of the two design methods. . . (2) The use of a single thickness is not permitted because the effectiveness of shear connection may depend on the stiffness of the concrete component. . . . . . .7.3(8). . . . Its calculations are straightforward on a spreadsheet. . .5 include several nominal yield strengths . . Until then. . Conclusions from a theoretical model for the effect of slab thickness. 192 . . • • for the partial-interaction method. . . . . . At present. . . . rather than another full set. . if possible . it should be possible to use the results of earlier tests to predict the influence of some of the parameters.3. . (1) (c) Steel grade: test the highest and lowest grades to be used. . (a) Thickness of sheeting: test the thinnest sheeting. .3. . . From notes to clauses 9. and the specification of embossments and their tolerances. . . . in this respect. research workers cannot validate these because manufacturers rarely release their detailed test results. . and standardize the other details . . . (2) (f) Grade of concrete: test with a mean strength not exceeding 1. results from tests on two shear spans are applicable for shear spans between those tested. . . (h) Shear span: account is taken of this in the provisions for use of the test results.3. . . some independent body. . . Ensure that the embossments on sheets tested satisfy clause B. The status of Annex B. . Development of better theoretical models would help. . . . . The results will be slightly conservative for stronger concretes. . . . . If an alternative coating is to be offered. . the design can presumably claim to be in accordance with Eurocode 4. . . . it should be possible to compare its performance with that of the standard coating in a few tests. .25 times the lowest value of fck to be specified (see clause B. . Where this is done. . (1) (g) Slab thickness: test the thinnest and thickest slabs . . . the situation is unsatisfactory. such as the relevant regulatory authority or its nominee. . For the m–k method. . . . and so reduce the number of new tests required. .3(2). . . meaning the profile. and use of fewer tests Annex B is informative.3(4) and 9. . its tests are done in groups of four. (1) (b) Type of sheeting. the results may not be applied to thinner or significantly weaker sheets. . . . .2(7). . This implies that where the testing does not conform to the extensive scheme outlined above. . This gives a total of 4 × 14 × 23 = 32 tests If it is suspected that the results for parameters (a) and (g) will be over-conservative for thick sheets and strong concrete. . . The variables are now considered in turn. . . . hence. . . (1) (e) Density of concrete: test the lowest and highest densities. .

5(2) is applicable to any set of six or more test results.5(1) Clause B. This cannot of course be the curing under water normally used for standard cubes and cylinders. As the shear span is a fixed proportion of the span. to destroy any chemical bond between the sheeting and the concrete.25 to compensate for brittle behaviour.3. These are in units of N/mm2.3.4) are obtained by altering the span L. The method of clause B.3.3. and hence values for m and k.4(3) Clause B. for specimens of given thickness ht.3.3.2(7)).3.2(6) Clause B.3(2) Clause B. can be reduced from six to four (clause B.3(8) to be from specimens with nominally identical concrete. but has been judged to be adequate for these purposes.2(2) Clause B. it is good practice to ensure that the tests also encompass the range of spans required for use in practice.3(3)). Crack inducers are placed beneath the loads (clause B. It has been found that the deliberate use of very different strengths for the specimens in regions A and B in Fig.3.4.3(1) Clause B.107 For sheeting with ductile behaviour and where design will use the partial-interaction method. 11.4(4)).3. k is proportional to the square root of the concrete strength. and may be that given in EN 1990.2(6) and Fig.5(2) Clause B.3. the specimens for the determination of concrete strength. These methods differ from that of BS 5950: Part 4.3.3.3.3. 11. to reduce the effect of local variations in the tensile strength of the concrete. Propped construction increases the longitudinal shear.4(4) Clause B. the number of tests in a series. defined in clause B. so there is no need to include concrete strength in the functions plotted in this figure. to which clause B. The test procedure for the strength of the profiled sheeting (clause B. It is required for the test specimens to enable the results to be used with or without propping (clause B.3.2(2)).3.3.3.4(3) and B.5(3) refers. irrespective of their scatter.3.3. From clause B.CHAPTER 11.3. and applies an additional factor of safety of 1.3(9) Clause B.3. STANDARD TESTS Testing arrangement Loading is applied symmetrically to a simply-supported slab of span L. is fewer than that required by BS 5940: Part 4.5(1) gives a design rule for the possibility that the two end reactions may differ slightly. and the two sets of three results could be from slabs with different concrete strengths. 5000. so that the subsequent test to failure gives a true indication of the long-term resistance to variations of longitudinal shear.3. This differs from the test details in BS 5950: Part 4. both in the determination of the line that gives the values of m and k (see Fig.3(8) Clause B. Clause B. when m and k are defined as in BS 5950: Part 4.3.This causes the applicability of the test results to be more restricted (clause B. at points distant L/4 from each support (clause B.5(3) 193 .3. The failure loading is much heavier than the slabs.2(7) Clause B. The number of cycles.3. specimens for regions such as A and B for the m–k method (clause B. In BS 5950.3. clause B. Design values for m and k Clause B.3(9).3(8).3(2) are intended to minimize the differences between the profiled sheeting used in the tests and that used in practice.8. B.3(9)). B. which causes complications with units. in the form of a reduction factor of 0.5(3) provides a simple method for finding the design line shown in Fig. should be cured under the same conditions as the test slabs. All the results in a diagram such as Fig. When deviation of strength from the mean is significant. the concrete strength is taken as the maximum value (clause B.4 are required by clause B.121 The initial loading test is cyclic (clauses B.3.3) and in their definition.3(6) Clause B.3.1(4)). ANNEX B (INFORMATIVE).3. An ‘appropriate statistical model’ will penalize both the scatter and the number of results.3(6)). so the shear spans Ls (Fig.3(1) and B.3. Where a series consists of six tests and the results are consistent.3. in which vertical shear is not constant over the length between a crack inducer and the nearer support. B.3 can lead to unsafe applications of the method.3) are subjected to almost constant vertical shear. B. The depth of embossments has been found to have a significant effect on the resistance. if small. Clauses B. As this method is empirical.3.3(10) Clause B.3(10)) is given elsewhere.

done in accordance with the relevant Netherlands standard. ‘Testing of composite floor slabs’. which assumes that an undefined slip can occur at the interface between the sheeting and the concrete. Clause B. Rd Clause B. The conversion of BS values to Eurocode values is illustrated in Example 11. the partial-interaction compressive force in the slab at the section where flexural failure is assumed to occur.6(3).3. so a separate one is needed for each thickness. This is Mtest in Fig.5.7.2). which assumes that the shear strength is uniform along the total length (Ls + L0). and is determined for a group of tests on specimens with nominally identical cross-sections as follows: (a) The measured values of the required dimensions and strengths of materials are determined. and z from equation (9.5. These tests. The need for tests at different thicknesses is discussed at the end of Appendix B of this guide.3(8). values of m and k are determined from a set of tests not in accordance with clause B. In reality. A more accurate equation for τu is given in clause B. for use with the alternative method of clause 9.9).3.3. there will be an overhang L0 beyond the shear span Ls. Example 11.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 The formula for vertical shear in clause 9.7. which has been omitted from EN 1994-1-1. This is for sagging bending. and evidence on ductility (clause B.3.7. with Nc replacing Nc. B.2(7). B. All the values of τu are used in a single calculation of the lower 5% fractile value.6(2).2). and used to calculate the full-interaction plastic moment of resistance of a test specimen.3.3(9). The values of m and k 194 . where relevant comment is given. This gives a single point on the curve in Fig. and can be used with any consistent set of units.3.6(4) From clause B. Clause B.5 are dimensionally correct.3(4) and the definitions of m and k in clause B.6(3) Clause B.3. sufficient points are found to define the partial-interaction curve.6(2).6). In clause B. B. f. The corresponding value of the bending resistance M is then calculated from M = Mpr + Nc z with Mpr from equation (9. a group of four tests on specimens of given span and slab thickness gives three values of τu. Mp. From clause B. This set of tests on eight simply-supported composite slabs has been fully reported. B. arising from the transmission of the vertical load across the interface to the support.2 of ENV 1994-1-1. and hence τu from equation (B. Rm and the corresponding compressive force in the concrete slab.6(4). The shape of the partial-interaction curve depends on the slab thickness.3. this effect is included in the value found for τu.3. However. (c) By repeating step (b) with different values of η.6(1) Design values for τu. along which slip will occur.6(1) refers to the partial-interaction curve shown in Fig. This is divided by γVS to obtain the design value used in clause 9.3. f.3. and leads to a value ηtest. This necessitates ductile behaviour. analyses of a given set of test results by the Eurocode method give values for m and k different to those found by the BS method. (b) A value is chosen for η (= Nc/Nc. f).6(2) Clause B.122 The cross-section of the profiled sheeting is shown in Fig. to clause B.3. the strength includes a contribution from friction at the interface between the sheeting and the concrete. a bending moment M is found from each test.1.3. This is allowed for in equation (B. Nc. and k even has different dimensions.4. were similar to ‘specific tests’ as specified in clause 10.5.2(7)).3. which determines a value Nc. The applicability of sets of test results not in accordance with Annex B are discussed in Appendix B of this guide. 9. For the test arrangement shown in Fig.3. RSBV 1990.1: m–k tests on composite floor slabs In this example.

An appropriate value of Ls has to be found.3.1(4) is not complied with. 34. ANNEX B (INFORMATIVE).2(3) specifies two-point loading.1.3. 11.5 N/mm2. The surfaces of the sheeting were not degreased (clause B. the overall thickness and span were ht = 170 mm and L = 4500 mm. For specimens 5–8. 0. STANDARD TESTS L = = = = = = = = W/4 W/4 W/4 W/4 Crack inducers W/2 Vertical shear due to applied loading 0 Ls Fig. Loading used in the tests on composite slabs determined here are used in Example 9. so the rule is satisfied. so clause B. and crack inducers were provided at distances L/8 each side of mid-span.3. 11. gives a cube strength of 27. and were cast using the same mix of lightweight-aggregate concrete. which is only 74% of 376 N/mm2.CHAPTER 11. 915 mm.3(8)) were as given in Table 11. is significantly higher than the yield strength found in another series of tests. For specimens 1–4. This is not in accordance with Fig. which is below the value used in Example 9.1. The tensile strength and the yield strength of the sheeting were found from coupons cut from its top and bottom flanges (clause B.3. as here.1(4) for the strength of the concrete. This is accepted.3(1)). Test specimens and procedure All of the composite slabs had the same breadth. The nominal yield strength for this sheeting.3(6)).3.2.2% proof strain. which includes the results of tests on the non-composite sheeting.3(10)).2. 11. Applying it to the mean cube strength for this series. where the notation is as in Fig. B.3. for use in the determination of m and k. which satisfies clause B.2) that has the same area as the 195 .3. The stress 376 N/mm2. it means that the clause was complied with.3.3.3. Steel mesh with 6 mm bars at 200 mm spacing was provided in each slab (clause B. clause B. The slabs were tested under four-point loading.1.3.2 = 376 N/mm2.3.2(4)). when the strengths of test specimens stored with slabs (clause B. was then 280 N/mm2. now 350 N/mm2. ‘Two-span continuous composite slab’. B.3(7)). The mean values were fu = 417 N/mm2 and fy. A shear–force diagram for two-point loading is found (the dashed line in Fig. as shown in Fig. measured at the 0.3(5). ht = 120 mm and L = 2000 mm. (Where a clause number is given without comment. with propped construction (clause B.4 N/mm2. There is a similar ‘80%’ rule in clause B.123 which was 320 N/mm2. The distance between the centre-line of each support and the adjacent end of each slab was 100 mm (clause B.) The tests to failure were done between the ages of 27 and 43 days. because small changes of yield strength have little influence on resistance to longitudinal shear.

51 2.1.8 fcu)0.6 56. the relevant axes (Fig.115 2. given above.5) For m and k as defined in EN 1994-1-1.19Wt to 0. including its weight.5 73. Results of tests to failure To satisfy clause 9. They are X = Ap /[bLs(0.213 0.5 73.4 0. and the same maximum vertical shear. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 fcu (N/mm2) 31.226 0.5 load (kN) ((1/N )mm) (N mm) 75.3(a)).5 (D11. The failure load.51 103y (N/mm2) 294 294 287 293 575 574 573 582 k = 0. m is the mean cube strength for the series.3 37.5 mm y = Vt /bdp (D11. the least excess being 13%.9 105.1 34.8fcu)0.51 2.2 56. where fcu.2Wt and 0. m)0. From these.0 107. was from 0.0 93. at a recorded end slip of 0.2 1.4) where fcu is the measured cube strength. Cyclic loading Clause B.2 Load at δ = L/50 (kN) 75.2 35.7. These divergences are not significant.7. Wt for specimen 1 was 75.1 108. These values are Table 11.1.1 mm slip (kN) 63.13Wt to 0.4 94.3 64. These loads all exceed the load at a slip of 0.4 94. The other symbols are in Eurocode notation.115 1. is for all these tests the value when L/50.57Wt. as defined in clause 9.1 mm by more than 10%.0125 N0.459 0.2 54. Results of tests on composite floor slabs Test No.8 52.5] Y = Vt /[bdp(0.6Wt. the representative vertical shear force Vt is taken as half the failure load.5] (D11. From clause B. All failures are therefore ‘ductile’. These are given in Table 11.222 0.5 times the BS value.9 95. with a mean failure load of 94.5 75.40Wt.8fcu)0.3 66. 11.472 0. Here. at a deflection (δ) of span/50.1.3 65.4 30.4 32.6) Approximate values for m and k to EN 1994-1-1 can be found by assuming that m to BS 5950: Part 4 is unchanged.6 59.4 specifies 5000 cycles of loading between 0.3(3) on ductility.2 104.5(1).7 56.5 y = Y(0.8fcu. close to the range specified.5 0.462 58.9 75.5 kN.1 mm.4 kN. and the range of loading in tests 2–4.3.115 1. and k is (0.220 0. For specimens 5–8. Determination of m and k In the original report122 the axes used for plotting the results were similar to those in BS 5950: Part 4 (Fig.0 90.7 94.4 37. it is necessary to record the total load on the specimen.3. the fatigue loading in tests 6–8 ranged from 0.8fcu)0. as it is in Annex B.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 actual shear–force diagram.3(b)) are 196 . the following values were determined: m = 178 N/mm2 x = Ap /bLs so that x = X(0. Values of X and Y were calculated from the results and are given in Table 11.9 91.2 52.9 75.2 94. Ls = L/4.460 0.2 36. 11.51 2.3(3). In these tests.9 Load at 0.115 1. for 10 000 cycles.5 75. and at maximum load. where Wt is a static failure load.7 103Y 103x Maximum 103X 0.

066 N/mm2 (D11. ANNEX B (INFORMATIVE).4 m = 184 N/mm2 A 1. as follows.3. +25%. which have y coordinates 10% below the values for specimens 3 and 7. Determination of m and k m = 178 N/mm2 k = 0. plot a new diagram. is satisfied. the design shear resistance is 197 .8) which are used in Example 9.7. Using the simplified method of that clause.7) These results are approximate because fcu is different for each test.0530 N/mm2 (D11. each plots as a single point: A and B. 11. and determine m and k from it in accordance with clause B. This line gives the results m = 184 N/mm2 k = 0. The correct method is to calculate x and y for each test.2 k = 0.6). The values of x and y for these tests.053 N/mm2 0 0. (b) EN 1994-1-1 V/bdp (N/mm2) 0. 11.3.5. on variation within each group. from equations (D11.002 0.0 C 0. –3%.6 B D 0.1. the approximate method gives a small error in m. From clause 9. Evaluation of the results of tests on composite slabs. For these tests. Clause B.4. (a) BS 5950: Part 4. and a larger error in k. the characteristic line is taken to be the line through points C and D. respectively. and the procedure of Annex B for finding characteristic values differs from the BS procedure.5 (a) (b) Ap/bLs Fig.5(3).4. STANDARD TESTS Vt/bdpfcm0. at the scale of Fig. 11.1. are given in Table 11.CHAPTER 11. The differences within each group of four are so small that.5 Shear-bond failure regression line B Vt/bdp A Design line (minimum values reduced by 10%) Design line (reduction of 15%) Ap/bLsfcm0.003 Ap/bLs Fig.3(4).001 0.3.

7. can give unconservative results.1. These tests were discontinued when the deflections reached span/50. respectively. Using the approximate values of equations (D11.49 and omitted from EN 1994-1-1. f = Ap fyp = 1145 × 0. For the partial-interaction method. and probably failed in flexure.3 mm.3 kN/m. In the absence of guidance from previous tests. which is satisfactory here.2(7) then requires a minimum of four tests on specimens of the same overall depth ht: three with a long shear span. an attempt will be made in the following Example 11.7) for m and k changes it only to 28. The m–k method was used for the verification for longitudinal shear. The tests available satisfy the 3ht condition. In Example 9.10) 198 . so clause 9. Rd = (bdp /γVS)[(mAp /bLs) + k] (D11.2 illustrates potential problems in using this method with existing test data. and in this example the errors in m and k almost cancel out.122 the behaviour of the slabs was ‘ductile’ to clause 9. using the same set of test results. this condition is difficult to satisfy when planning tests. only 0. and proposes a method to replace it. Rd is lower than it would have been if a shorter span had been used for tests 1–4. reveal a problem. so that the final design value τu. Other aspects of these tests are compared with the provisions of Annex B in Example 11. Rd was found to be 28. Note on the partial-interaction method A composite slab using sheeting of the type tested was designed in Example 9. This is confirmed by the results that follow: the shear strength from tests 1–4 is about 30% lower than that from the short-span tests 5–8.2 to use it in an alternative verification of the same composite slab. To illustrate the partial-interaction method of clauses 9.9) The second term in square brackets is much smaller than the first.1 that in the eight tests reported.5. 1 to 4).3(9).1.3(7) to 9.7. the plastic neutral axes are above the sheeting. Example 11. Clause B.2(5) applies.3.122 It is assumed that the reader is familiar with the two examples referred to.1. V . The specimens had the high span/depth ratio of 26. The four long-span slabs were all thicker than the four short-span slabs. clause B. so it is unlikely that the maximum longitudinal shear was reached.122 For full shear connection. not longitudinal shear. with values of m and k calculated from test results. and one with a short shear span.1.7.7.3(3).376 = 431 kN/m (D11. where the end slips at maximum load were from 1 to 2 mm and the span/depth ratio was 16. Example 11. The mean measured yield strength and cross-sectional area of the sheeting were 376 N/mm2 and 1145 mm2/m.7. shows that a procedure given in ENV 1994-1-1. as shown in Example 11.0 kN/m.2(7) requires the shear strength to be determined from the results for the long-span slabs.3.1. The longitudinal force for full interaction is Nc. It is shown in Example 11. The maximum recorded end slips in the long-span tests (Nos. before any general conclusion can be drawn about the accuracy of the approximate method of calculation. The purpose of the single short-span test is to verify ductility. Its condition for a shear span ‘as long as possible while still providing failure in longitudinal shear’ was probably not satisfied here.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 V . Similar comparisons are needed with other sets of test results. to determine τu.2: the partial-interaction method The partial-interaction diagram Measured cube strengths and maximum loads for the eight tests are given in Table 11. but not that for uniform depth. but not less than 3ht.

0815 = 35.13) (based on equation (D9. ANNEX B (INFORMATIVE). f in the sheeting acts at its centre of area. Rm found in the tests. equation (9. Calculations for the partial-interaction diagram and τu For η ≥ 0.85 × 29. for example. 9. Curve FG is found by calculations for a set of values for η that covers the range of M/Mp. The mean bending resistance is given by MRm = Mpr + ηNc. equation (D11.5 55 Ncf = 431 z Nc Nc = 431 Np e = 30 431 (b) zp Np (c) (a) Fig. f). which equals Np zp in Fig. the stress block depth is 17η mm.25Mp. with a line of action 8. For any assumed value for η.13) give MRm = ηNc.7 N/mm2. a(1 – η) Assuming η = 0.6).9). corresponds to a cylinder strength fcm of 29.7 × 8.5(c)).4) should for this purpose be replaced by z = ht – 0. where the profile is such that ep > e (these symbols are shown in Fig.0 mm (D11.7.6 upwards.2(6) modified by clause 9.12) where ht is the thickness of the slab tested. 11. is found from equation (9. 11. B. 36. and.11) that for any degree of shear connection η (= Nc/Nc.5 – 30 = 84. STANDARD TESTS 8.7. 11.CHAPTER 11. 11. a lower predicted τu.14) 199 .5η xpl – e (D11. the simplification given in equation (D9.5(b). 30 mm above its bottom surface.12) gives for specimens 5–8 z = 120 – 0. f z + 1.1 kN m/m The method of calculation for the partial-interaction diagram is now considered. so that the depth of the concrete stress block is xpl = 431/(0. 11. the force Nc.5. following the route ABC then gives a lower value for ηtest. hence. The mean cube strength for specimens 5–8. For typical trapezoidal sheeting. Rm = 431 × 0.2(5) and 9. It follows from equation (D11.0 mm (D11.3(8). The reduced plastic resistance of the sheeting.2.5 correspond to those used in clauses 9.7.6) and equation (D11.2).5(c). so the lever arm is z = 120 – 17/2 – 30 = 81.8 N/mm2.6(1). the lever arm z is given by equation (9.6). f z (D11.8) = 17. The stress blocks in Fig. following clause B. This moves curve FG in Fig. Mpr.5 65 81. The use of e in place of ep is because an approximation to the mean resistance MRm should over-estimate it. from equation (B.5 mm and Mp.7.5)). Stress blocks for bending resistance of composite slab with partial interaction (dimensions in mm) and the stress blocks are as shown in Fig. For a given test resistance M.3.5h 8.11) With full interaction.5η mm below the top of the slab (Fig.

2 kN that was. Rm = 23.646. a = 5.7 kN m/m. Rm G 0.6 0.6(2). ηtest = 0. Rm = 56. For η = 0. MRm = 0.14).122 The loads on the composite member were thus as shown inset on Fig.8 Tests 1 to 4 0.2 0.646 C 0.7 × 431 × 0.1 × 0.084 + 1. From equation (D11.8 0. This included 2. four-point loading was used (see Fig. 11.1 = 0.6. Here.11.83/(0.742 From Fig. there was significant slip throughout the length of 3L/8 between each inner point load and the nearer support.6.6 0.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 From the tests.5 – 30 = 134 mm MRm = 0. with ep = 33 mm. and Ls was taken as 3L/8.65 × 0.1 H 250 500 Tests 5 to 8 J 250 F 0. In clause B. on the assumption that two-point loading is used in the tests.0 × 0.3 = 27. and the bending moment at point J was Mtest = 47.48/35.3.783 For specimens 1–4.5/56.1.75 – 23. ht = 170 mm and Mp.5 = 23. so.48 kN m/m and MRm /Mp.0 2.6. for these tests. Rm = 27. 11.750 Similar calculations for other degrees of shear connection give curves DE for the shortspan slabs 5–8 and FG for slabs 1–4.7 × 8. the maximum load was 94.2).7 × 431 × 0.742 D 47.5 kN m/m MRm /Mp. the bending moment M is defined as being ‘at the cross-section under the point load’.25 × 5.7 htest = 0.25 × 5. in effect. 11.915 × 35.7 = 0.65 × 0.122 Mp.3 = 42.86 A E B Tests 5 to 8 46. z = 170 – 0.9 h = Nc/Ncf Fig. so e – ep = 3 mm.65 kN m/m.9 0. At failure. much less than z.83 htest = 0. The calculation of Mtest for specimen 5 is now explained.7 0.915 m. M/Mp.7. applied to the composite slab by the removal of the prop that was present at mid-span during concreting. M was determined at an inner point load.1) = 0. Partial-interaction diagram from tests (units: mm and kN) 200 . so that Mtest/Mp. Rm = 42.134 + 1.83 kN m This is for a slab of width 0.2 kN. From Table 11.

for these thinner slabs (ht = 120 mm). where tests are being planned. as for the m–k method.863 0.7 23.144 N/mm2 The interaction curve DE for specimens 5–8 is slightly higher than FG in Fig. Rd is straightforward. a /Mp.863 0.9 75. This much higher result confirms the suspicion. Degree of shear connection. However.83 × 431/1790 = 0. Ncf = 431 kN/m.25 = 0.0 m.3.742 η 0. Rk as the 5% lower fractile. with γVS taken as 1.833 0.835 0. determination of τu. based on the results for tests 1–4. or other data are being used.1 m. from tests on composite slabs Test No. Hence.5 73.846 0. noted above. f /[b(Ls + L0)] (D11. 0. 1 2 3 4 5 Maximum load (kN) 75. It is of particular importance to ensure that longitudinal shear failures occur in the tests. There may be other evidence on the variance of such results.646 Corresponding results for tests 1–4 are given in Table 11. τu. τu = 0. Mp. Rm.6.5 75.2.25.69 m.6(4) defines τu.3. as values of η can be found by replacing the graphical method (used here for illustration) by direct calculation. Clause B.8 43.4 94. ANNEX B (INFORMATIVE). is higher because.862 0. Its value at η = 0. Comments Where the test data are in accordance with the specification in Annex B. that longitudinal shear failure was not reached in specimens 1–4.24 N/mm2. 11.CHAPTER 11. at 35 kN m/m. Rm 0.200/1. Rm is lower. Using the preceding method for these results gives τu. Rd = 0.8 44.5/8 = 1. τu = ηNc.835 0. Here.15) For tests 1–4. STANDARD TESTS Table 11. The values of η for tests 1–4 are so close that τu can be found from their mean value. Ls = 3 × 4.3.6(6).6(2). Mp. For all tests.814 0.9 44. From clause B.83 Mtest /Mp. and b is taken as 1.200 N/mm2 From clause B. the work requires understanding of the basis of the provisions of Annex B.2.2 Mtest (kN m) 44. Rd = 0. as here.83. 201 . it is assumed that this enables a value 10% below the mean to be used. L0 = 0.9 × 0.

and br ds As h z c a b0 bs hp/2 Fig.2(6) as the lower of the values at mid-span and at a support. Its transformed area in ‘steel’ units is Ae = b0 hp /nbs (a) where n is the modular ratio. It is now determined for the cross-section shown in Fig. Model for stiffness of a composite slab in hogging bending .4.1 with the sheeting neglected. The latter usually governs. Simplified expression for ‘cracked’ flexural stiffness of a composite slab The ‘cracked’ stiffness per unit width of a composite slab is defined in clause 6. The position of the elastic neutral axis is defined by the dimensions a and c.4. because the profiled sheeting may be discontinuous at a support. A. so that Aec = Asa z = h – ds – hp /2 and a+c=z (b) (c) where As is the area of top reinforcement per unit width of slab. A.1. It is assumed that only the concrete within the troughs is in compression.APPENDIX A Lateral–torsional buckling of composite beams for buildings This appendix supplements the comments on clause 6.

The stiffness is k2 = M/φ = Fhs2/δ The force F is assumed to be resisted by vertical tension in the steel web and compression in a concrete strut BC. Maximum spacing of shear connectors for continuous U-frame action A rule given in ENV 1994-1-1 is derived.4bT (a) The initial inclination from the vertical of the web. (a) Flexural stiffness of encased web.1) (d) Flexural stiffness of beam with encased web For a partially encased beam the model used for the derivation of equation (6. the second moment of area per unit width is I = As a2 + Ae(c2 + hp2/12) Using equations (b) to (d). θ0 is assumed to be increased to bc/4 T A C 0.7. of width bc/4. which is resisted by a tensile force T in each stud.11).2(a). It is assumed that stud connectors are provided at spacing s in a single row along the centre of the steel top flange (Fig. A lateral force F applied to the steel bottom flange causes displacement δ.11) for the flexural stiffness k2 is as shown in Fig. A. It is caused by a bending moment Fhs acting about A.4. from the definition of ks in clause 6. (b) Spacing of shear connectors 204 . Mt s = 0. Resistance to transverse bending in an inverted U-frame. For a design longitudinal moment MEd at the adjacent internal support. The rotation of line AB is φ = δ/hs. 6. A. would be resisted by a moment ksθ0. A. From Fig.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Assuming that each trough is rectangular. θ0 in Fig.2(b)). The tendency of the bottom flange to buckle laterally causes a transverse moment Mt per unit length.9(b). the flexural stiffness is (EI)2 = Ea [As Ae z2/(As + Ae) + Ae hp2/12] This result is used in Example 6. due to the tendency of the bottom flange to buckle sideways. Elastic analysis gives equation (6.2. (DA. A.2(6).2.4b T bc/4 hs B F d (a) (b) Mt Fig.

04 PRd (1 .2) This upper limit to the spacing of studs reduces as the slenderness λLT increases.66(b/tw)(h/tw)(1/tw) (e) For rolled sections. This deformation causes a transverse bending moment per unit length Mt = ksθ0[(MEd /Mcr)/(1 – MEd /Mcr)] (b) where ks is the stiffness defined in clause 6.06 0.03 0.05 θ0[(MEd /Mcr)/(1 – MEd /Mcr)] where Mcr is the elastic critical buckling moment.2) gives s £ 6. min/ds 0.0.12 0.8b. For studs in two rows. these spacings can be doubled. A typical L/h ratio is 20.5 smax (mm) 362 204 767 509 452 100As.4b (Fig. or where web encasement was used.χLT λLT 2 ) = £ b Mt 0.2(1) is such that MEd £ χLT MRd.4. This check is not required by EN 1994-1-1. ks. Maximum spacings for 19 mm studs.90.4.2(4). is given by equation (6. A.9k2 where k2. For λLT = 0. The combined stiffness of the slab and the web.4.g. so that equation (b) becomes Mt = ksθ0[(χLT λLT 2 )/(1 – χLT λLT 2 )] (c) It is assumed that the resistance of the studs to longitudinal shear. With Ea = 210 kN/mm2 and ν = 0. λLT 2 = MRk/Mcr. From clause 6.05 ks χLT λLT 2 (DA. Here.1PRd (d) The initial slope θ0 is taken as L/400 h. because the assumed lever arm for the moment Mt would increase from 0.2(6). ENV 1994-1-1 required the maximum spacings to be halved.0 14.4. the closest stud spacing is thus required for relatively thick webs.2) to about 0. It can be evaluated where the conditions of clause 6. s 0. From these results.APPENDIX A. the stiffness of the web. 205 .02 0. MRd is taken as approximately equal to the characteristic resistance MRk.3 for simplified verification are satisfied.6 10. PRd.1. substitution into equation (DA. because the value λLT = 0. From Table 6.4T 0. giving θ0 = 0.4 can be assumed. For a typical 19 mm stud. where h is the depth of the steel section. depends mainly on the stiffness of the web. and minimum top reinforcement Serial size 762 × 267 UB 610 × 305 UB 610 × 229 UB IPE 600 HEA 700 Mass (kg/m) 197 238 101 122 204 Web thickness (mm) 15.4 it gives χLT = 0. and is here taken as 0.1.05.6 12. Examples are given in Table A. hs ª 0. and that this is achieved if T £ 0.97 h.5 of EN 1993-1-1. must not be reduced. The design procedure of clause 6.3) For a typical I-section. For web-encased beams.10) as k2 = Eatw3/[4(1 – νa2)hs] (DA.6 18. the resistance PRd is about 75 kN. LATERAL–TORSIONAL BUCKLING OF COMPOSITE BEAMS FOR BUILDINGS Table A. buckling curve c should be used for rolled I-sections with a depth/breadth ratio exceeding 2. but could do so where there was a need for wide spacing of studs (e. because precast concrete floor slabs were being used) on a beam with a relatively thick web. The results show that it would not govern in normal practice.3.

and is not redefined here.11) (a) It is on the safe side to neglect the term GaIat in equation (D6.1PRd/s.9ds) where As is the area of top transverse reinforcement per unit length along the beam. at its design yield stress fsd. whereas some should be placed near the upper surface. They show that although top reinforcement is required for U-frame action. The requirements for minimum reinforcement of clause 9.1ksL2/π2.0060PRd tw3/h Assuming PRd = 75 kN and fsd = 500/1. Mcr = (kcC4 /π)(ks Ea Iafz)1/2 (b) It is assumed that the stiffness of the concrete slab k1 is at least 2. the force T per unit length is 0. Clause 6. k2. Iafz = bf3tf /12 Ê M ˆ 48π2 hs (1 .3.5 Derivation of the simplified expression for λ LT (D6.9(a)).2. in the plane of the diagram. on local reinforcement in the slab. so these are excluded. given by equation (6. The reinforcement will be light. 6. λLT = (MRk /Mcr)0.7k2. the amount is small.4. does not refer to this subject.0115tw3/h (f) These values are given in the last row of Table A. Hence. The notation is as in the comments on clause 6.3 times the stiffness of the steel web.9As fsd ds ≥ 0.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Top transverse reinforcement above an edge beam Where the concrete flange of a beam is continuous on one side only. so an effective depth ds = 100 mm is assumed.10) in clause 6.1(4) and of EN 1992-1-1 could also be satisfied by bottom reinforcement.4 and in this appendix.11). which in practice is usually less than 0.4. Repeating equation (D6. so ks in equation (b) can be replaced by 0.15 = 435 N/mm2: 100As /ds ≥ 115tw3/ds2h The area As is thus greatest for a thin slab. The preceding results for spacing of stud connectors can be used to estimate the amount required.5.8) in clause 6. even where concrete in the lower half of the slab is present only in the troughs of sheeting. 0.4bT/s = 0.2. then always exceeds 0.2(4). top transverse reinforcement (AB) is required to prevent lateral buckling by anticlockwise rotation of the steel section. so the lever arm for transverse bending can be taken as 0.υa 2 ) λLT 4 = Á Rk ˜ Ë kc ¯ 0. Using it and the equations above.6.7k2. (d) 206 . 6.1.11): Mcr = (kcC4/L)[(Ga Iat + ks L2/π2)EaIafz]1/2 From clause 6. The combined stiffness ks. and could be satisfied by bottom reinforcement only. so from equation (a) the transverse bending moment is Mt = 0.04bPRd /s = As fsd(0. as in Fig. From expression (d) above. This replacement would not be valid for an encased web.4.2. For a steel flange of breadth bf and thickness tf. giving 100As /ds ≥ 0.7Ea 2 tw 3 bf 3 tf C4 2 2 (c) The stiffness k2 is given by equation (6.9ds (notation as in Fig. Using expression (e) for s.9(a).

0 Á 1 + w s ˜ Á s ˜ 4 bf tf ¯ Ë tw ¯ Ë 0.4 1. the plastic resistance to bending is given approximately by Mpl.5 Ê tf ˆ Áb ˜ Ë f¯ Ê fy ˆ ÁEC ˜ Ë a 4¯ (D6.3.APPENDIX A. LATERAL–TORSIONAL BUCKLING OF COMPOSITE BEAMS FOR BUILDINGS For sections in Class 1 or Class 2.25 (f) 0.3. Ê t h ˆÊh ˆ λLT = 5. Rk.0 3.75 0.0 y Fig. C4 y M0 yM 0 0.5yM0 30 M0 is the bending moment at midspan when both ends are simply supported yM0 0. with υa = 0. a. MRk = Mpl. It can be shown that Mpl. a. Values of the factor C4 for uniformly distributed and centre point loading 207 . Rk(1 + tw hs /4bf tf) (e) For double-symmetrical steel I-sections.0 2. Rk is given approximately by Mpl.75yM0 yM 0 yM 0 yM 0 20 yM 0 y M0 yÆ• 10 yÆ• 4 0. A. Rk = fy hs bf tf (1 + tw hs /4bf tf) From equations (d) to (f).14) as given in Annex B of ENV 1994-1-1. Rk = kc Mpl.

From equations (6. k2.25 yM0 M0 L 20 Lc M yM Lc/L = 0.2 ¥ (2. and bf /tw is at least 15 for rolled or welded I-sections. C4 Uniform loading No transverse loading 30 Lc/L = 0.2 Assuming. Thus.7 in equation (d) above is replaced by 1. e ks = k2. With these values. as above.78 k2 2. and νa = 0.8). that k1 > 2. e /k2 = 12.7k2 = 1. and for spans without transverse loading 208 .3 + 1) > = 2. so ks.3k2 and using equation (6.4.10) and (6.2 It was found above that ks can be replaced by 0.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Effect of web encasement on λ LT The reduction in relative slenderness achieved by encasing a steel web to clause 5.78 × 0.11).0 y Fig.5 yM 1.95k2. k2.3. the change in ks is ks.5. e k2 = (1 . The subscript e is used for properties of the section after encasement.3 + 12. Hence.υa 2 )bf 2 4(1 + 4 ntw /bf )tw 2 The modular ratio n rarely exceeds 12. the divisor 0. A. e is now replaced by 2.00 M 4 0 0. e k1 + k2.50 10 Lc/L = 0. Values of the factor C4 for cantilevers.75 Lc/L = 1.7k2.3(2) can be estimated as follows.95. e k1 + k2 12.

15)) for some IPE. where both it and the adjacent span of length L have the same intensity of distributed loading. Factor C4 for the distribution of bending moment Criteria for verification of lateral–torsional stability without direct calculation Unlike UB steel sections.95)0. and the qualifying sections. A.77 (DA. The more commonly used values for distributed loading on internal spans are plotted in Fig. For values of ψ exceeding 3. A. not necessarily to complete spans.14).7/1. S 235 610 × 229 UB 14 457 × 191 UB S 275 IPE sections 12 S 355 610 × 305 UB S 420. From equation (D6. h. h (mm) Fig. it can be deduced that the values of Flim used in EN 1994-1-1 for the various grades of steel are as given in Table A.3. Plots of their section properties F. 209 . LATERAL–TORSIONAL BUCKLING OF COMPOSITE BEAMS FOR BUILDINGS F 16 457 × 152 UB 533 × 210 UB Flim for uncased section. as shown in Fig.2. This enables limits on F to be presented in Table 6. A.4. values corresponding to ψ Æ • can conservatively be used.5. From this. S 460 10 HEA sections 8 Does not qualify for grades S 420 and S 460 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Depth. e /λLT = (0.3 as limits to overall depth. Property F (equation (D6. The dashed lines in Fig.1 of clause 6. the basic sets of IPE and HEA sections have only one size for each overall depth.3 are for point loads at mid-span. A. The dashed lines are for an unloaded span with one or both ends continuous.15).4.APPENDIX A. Flim for given λLT is proportional to fy–0. A.0. These are also shown. Two other sets of values are plotted in Fig. HEA and UB steel sections λLT.5.25 = 0. from equation (D6. against h lie on straight lines. The solid lines apply for lateral buckling of a cantilever of length Lc.4) The tables that were given in ENV 199449 relate to distributions of bending moment between points at which the steel bottom flange is laterally restrained.5.

9 18. the effect of web encasement is to increase Flim by a factor of at least 1/0.1. From equation (DA. crosses in Fig. It is not possible to give a qualifying condition in terms of depth only.3 15. The additional depths permitted by clause 6. These values are given in Tables 6.15) should be used. uncased Flim.5 represent the 10 sections listed in Table 6. encased web S235 15. for uncased and web-encased sections Nominal steel grade Flim. The entries ‘Yes’ in that table correspond to the condition F £ Flim.4. The only exception is HEA 550.3(1)(h) are a little more conservative than this result.8 S420 and S460 10.8 13. but does not qualify according to Table 6.0 S355 12.4).77 = 1.9 The IPE and HEA sections shown qualify for all steel grades that have Flim above their plotted value of F. Limiting section parameter Flim. equation (D6. For UB sections.2.5 S275 13.2.1 and A. Web encasement 210 .1. A.1 19. which plots just below the S420 and S460 line.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Table A.29.

1 shows the left-hand shear span of a composite slab of breadth b and effective depth dp.3 and B. as would be found by the procedure of clause B. with ultimate shear strength τu. the model gives no help in predicting the effect of slab thickness on ultimate shear strength τu slabs of at least two different thicknesses should be tested. as defined in clause 9.3. to which reference should be made.3.6 (except that all values here are mean values. The self-weight of the slab is neglected in comparison with Vt.APPENDIX B The effect of slab thickness on resistance of composite slabs to longitudinal shear Summary A mechanical model based on ductile shear connection has been applied to the m–k and partial connection methods of Section 9 for design of composite slabs for longitudinal shear. with no partial safety factors). The sheeting and the slab are shown separated in Fig. preferably with the same shear span. at failure in a test in accordance with clause B.3. Figure B. B. For the m–k method it was shown124 that: • • • • • where the assumptions of the model apply. The model The notation and assumptions are generally those of clauses 9.7. the two sets of tests from which m and k are derived can be done on sets of slabs of different thickness but similar concrete strength two widely different shear spans should be used predictions by the m–k method of EN 1994-1-1 for degrees of shear connection between those corresponding to the shear spans tested.1.3(3). and the longitudinal shear force between them is . For the partial-connection method it was found124 that: • • where tests are done on slabs of one thickness only. the value of each of the two point loads at failure. The shear connection is assumed to be ductile. are conservative predictions for degrees of shear connection outside this range are unconservative the percentage errors can be estimated.7.

The dependent variable is the vertical shear resistance. but accurate enough for the present work.5) For a particular sheeting and strength of concrete.1. Its depth is ηxpl. y1 = mx1 + k The use of test results as predictors hxpl dp hNcf Vt hNcf dp – hxpl/2 Mpr e Vt L = hLsf hNcf hp Fig. The conclusions do not depend on the accuracy of the factor 0. The resistance Mpr is assumed to be given by Mpr = (1 – η2)Mp. Mp. which is also approximate. as shown by the stress blocks in Fig. it may be assumed that Ncf. a (DB. and is assumed to lie within the concrete slab. f = τubLs (DB. and stress blocks at failure in longitudinal shear 212 . so that Ls = ηLsf (DB. η.3) The bilinear relationship given in clause 9. (x1. a. B. The line is y = mx + k For a single result. Npl. Vt = (Ncf /ηLsf)[ηdp – η2 xpl /2 + 0. the rectangular stress block is quite shallow.1) where η is the degree of shear connection. In the absence of a partial safety factor for strength of concrete. B. by drawing a line through two test results.2) where Lsf is the length of shear span at which the longitudinal force Nc. Lsf. B. say.2. Vt Ls = ηNcf (dp – ηxpl /2) + Mpr Hence. Let the plastic bending resistance of the sheeting be Mp. Shear span of composite slab. For equilibrium of the length Ls of composite slab. represented by the degree of shear connection. The value of τu is assumed to be independent of the shear span.4) For a typical profiled sheeting.1.3hpNpl. reduced to Mpr in the presence of an axial force N. Hence. a]/(ηLsf) (DB. The independent variables are the slab thickness.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 ηNc. f equals the tensile strength of the sheeting. Vt = [ηNcf (dp – ηxpl /2) + (1 – η2)Mp.3 hp(1 – η2)] (DB. y1). £ 1. Vt. xpl and hp are constant. a ª 0. and the shear span in a test.2(6) is an approximation to this equation. represented by dp.7.3. This is assumed here. where xpl is the depth for full shear connection. The m–k method The properties m and k are determined from the graph shown in Fig.

7 and 1. f hp are calculated and plotted against 1/η.5. Equation (DB. 0. so that other predictions are subject to error.3(4). The values in columns 4 and 5 of the table are proportional to Vt. For some degree of shear connection between those used in two tests on slabs of the same thickness. Shape of function y(x) As an example.2. by differentiation of equation (DB.5) then becomes Vt = (Nc. For a degree of shear connection outside this range. so the method is safe.0. B. the method gives the result Vpred. for which the m–k line is drawn through the results for η1 and η2.4. Vtrue. shown in Fig. so the percentage values are correct. according to the model. They lie on a convex-upwards curve.APPENDIX B.7) in clause 9. Vt1 = bdp1(mAp /bLs1 + k) This is equation (9.3/η + 2 – 0. It has been shown that it is in fact curved. and for this test result. Determination of m and k from two sets of test results From the definitions of x and y.6) Suppose that four otherwise identical tests are done with shear spans such that η = 0. This is so also for the second test result.2. Typical results are given in Table B. SLAB THICKNESS AND RESISTANCE TO LONGITUDINAL SHEAR y = Vt/bdp Vtrue Vpred 0 x = Ap/bhLsf Fig. This is less than the resistance given by equation (DB. Two test results ‘predict’ themselves.7. and used to predict the shear resistance for a slab with η = η3. values for the other two tests predicted by the m–k method are obtained. f hp /Lsf)(0.5). It was shown. The basic assumption of the m–k method is that other results can be predicted by assuming a straight line through the two known results. Comparison with the plotted points gives the error from the m–k method. as a percentage. as shown in Fig. as expected. 0. The (assumed) true results for Vt Lsf /Nc. from which the m–k line was predicted.2.Thus. Estimate of errors of prediction 213 . that the curve through the two points found in tests is convex upwards.2. suppose that for a set of tests with dp /hp = 2.4.5η) (DB. shown in Fig. the m–k method predicts exactly the first test result.1. By drawing lines through any two of the points.5). B. B. the depth xpl of the concrete stress block is given by xpl /hp = 0. The slope of the curve y(x) was found for a set of tests done with different shear spans and constant slab thickness.0 the sheeting and concrete are such that when the shear span is Lsf. the m–k method is unsafe. even if the slab thickness and shear span are different. B.

9) is independent of shear span because ductile behaviour is assumed.0 0.7).7 η2 1.0 0. Rm is the plastic resistance moment with full shear connection. Hence. The specimens and shear span should be identical with those in tests 1–3 in the first group.3.1.2(7)).3. with v2 > v1. but the difference may be small. shows ductile behaviour. 9. The m–k results are applicable within the range of shear spans tested. so that equation (B. but the concrete strengths should be the same. Thus. Let the ratios dp/hp for these two series be denoted v1 and v2. with shear spans as widely different as possible. The partial-connection method From Fig.3hp(1 – η2)] (DB.55 Error of prediction (%) –4 +10 +9 Conclusion for the m–k method Two sets of tests should be done.5) and (DB.80 2. Information on the effect of slab 214 .5 1.3.5 of EN 1994-1-1) can be found. subject to obtaining the correct failure mode.0 η3 0. For any assumed value for η.98 2. f /Mp. Equation (DB. For simplicity it is assumed that Lsf + L0 ª Lsf.7) The overhang L0 (clause B.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Table B.6 becomes τu = ηNc. The slab thickness should be roughly central within the range of application. Rm = (Nc. Assuming that over this range the relationship between test bending resistance M and ratio v is linear. (DB. interpolation for η is conservative for slab thicknesses between those tested. f /bLsf From equations (DB. and can differ in the two sets. an ultimate bending moment M can be calculated from equation (DB. it can be shown124 that the η–v curve is convex upwards. the ultimate bending moment at the end of the shear span is M = VtηLsf (DB. because the longitudinal strain across the depth of the embossments will be more uniform in the thicker slabs.08 1. further tests at constant thickness but different shear span would only provide a check on the presence of ductile behaviour. The thicknesses for the two groups should be near the ends of the range to be used in practice.1. except for slab thickness.7 1. It gives no information on the rate of change of η with slab thickness or shear span.00 1. B. If safety factors are omitted. the effect of thickness can be deduced from results of a further group of three tests. Assuming that the fourth test. Errors in prediction of Vt by the m–k method η1 0. the same curve is used to find ηtest from a measured value Mtest. M/Mp. and hence τu from equation (DB. B. and probably for a short distance outside it.8).78 Plotted value 2. so a single group of four tests gives no basis for predicting τu for slabs of different thickness from those tested.2) in clause B. It is likely that η2 > η1.4 0. with a short shear span (clause B. and may be unconservative outside this range.9) where Mp.9).8) Conclusion for the partial-connection method For this method.6(2) and Fig. leading to the corresponding degrees of shear connection η1 and η2.4 0. Rm)[ηdp – η2xpl /2 + 0.4 Prediction from m–k line 2. an M–η curve (Fig.2) is much less than Lsf.

APPENDIX B. SLAB THICKNESS AND RESISTANCE TO LONGITUDINAL SHEAR thickness is best obtained from tests at constant shear span and two thicknesses. It can be shown that values of degree of shear connection for intermediate thicknesses can be obtained by linear interpolation between the values for the thicknesses tested. 215 .

concrete and reinforcement are all doubly symmetric about a single pair of axes. Rd/2 D 0 B Mpl.1. 6.or H-section or a rectangular or circular hollow section. They are applicable to cross-sections of columns where the structural steel. N Npl. Examples are shown in Fig. C and D in Fig. C.17. Polygonal interaction curve . Rd M Fig.1.19. The steel section should be an I. also shown in Fig. Rd Mmax. 6. C. Rd C Npm.APPENDIX C Simplified calculation method for the interaction curve for resistance of composite column cross-sections to compression and uniaxial bending Scope and method Equations are given for the coordinates of points B. Rd A Npm.

and the bending resistance is unchanged. Rc2 = Ac2 fcc Ra2 = Aa2 fyd + As2 fsd where compressive forces and strengths fcc.3. Rd is given by clause 6. fsd and fyd are taken as positive.3. However.7.2. Rd is calculated as follows. and Ra2 is the resistance of the steel in region (2). C. and of concrete.7.2(a) represents a generalized cross-section of structural steel and reinforcement (shaded area). This is because the areas of structural steel.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 bc cy b cy cz (1) B (2) C (1) D B hn G D tf y ez tw cz ey h hc hn C z (a) (b) Fig. with rectangular stress blocks for structural steel. The line CC at the same distance hn on the other side of G is the neutral axis for point C in Fig.7.3.2(6). Ra1 = |Ra3| Rc1 = Rc3 (C. Figure C.7. Composite cross-sections symmetrical about two axes Plastic analysis is used. For filled tubes of circular section.2) 218 . Using subscripts 1 to 3 to indicate regions (1) to (3).2(2) to 6. concrete and reinforcement in region (2) are all symmetrical about G. the coefficient ηc in clause 6.2. fcc = 0. In this annex. Rd. so that the changes of stress when the axis moves from BB to CC add up to the resistance Npm. where generally. symmetrical about two axes through its centre of area G. C.2(1).3. The resistance Npm. From symmetry. the compressive stress in concrete in a rectangular stress block is denoted fcc. following clause 6. the coefficient 0. In the notation of clause 6. For bending only (point B) the neutral axis is line BB which defines region (1) of the cross-section.1) where Rc2 is the resistance of the concrete in region (2).2(6) has conservatively been taken as zero. for concrete-filled steel sections. Resistance to compression The plastic resistance Npl. and concrete in accordance with clauses 6. Rd = Rc2 + 2|Ra2| (C.85 may be replaced by 1. Npm.2(1). within which concrete is in compression.0.1.85fcd. reinforcement.7.3.3.7.

RESISTANCE OF COMPOSITE COLUMNS TO COMPRESSION AND UNIAXIAL BENDING When the neutral axis is at BB. Rd with Mn.4).2) and (C. Bending resistances The axial resistance at point D in Fig. n fsd + Wpc.8) 219 . Rd = Mmax. Rd – Mn. N = 0.5) where Wpa. Wps and Wpc are the plastic section moduli for the structural steel. and fyd.1 is half that at point C. Rd = Wpa fyd + Wps fsd + Wpc fcc /2 (C. C. the reinforcement and the concrete part of the section (for the calculation of Wpc the concrete is assumed to be uncracked). (C. Equations for the plastic section moduli of some cross-sections are given below.4) where Rc is the compressive resistance of the whole area of concrete.2(4) the appropriate areas of steel should be assumed to resist shear alone. Rd = Rc2 + Rc1 + Rc3 = Rc (C.7) (C. Rd = Wpa.1) and (C. n and Wpc. |Ra2| = Rc1 = Rc3.2(a). which is easily calculated. n fcc /2 (C.3) Position of neutral axis Equations for hn depend on the axis of bending. the type of cross section and the cross section properties.3). n fyd + Wps. The bending resistance at point B is Mpl. Npm. the reinforcement and the concrete. n are the plastic section moduli for the structural steel.2(a). Neutral axes and plastic section moduli of some cross-sections General The compressive resistance of the whole area of concrete is Npm.l). Wps. The method given here can be applied using the remaining areas. C. The bending resistance at point D is Mmax. The equations are derived from equations (C.3. Rd = Ac fcc The value of the plastic section modulus of the total reinforcement is given by (C. so that Ra1 + Rc1 = |Ra2| + |Ra3| From eqs (C. so the neutral axis for point D is line DD in Fig. Interaction with transverse shear If the shear force to be resisted by the structural steel is considered according to clause 6.6) where Wpa. and are given below for some cross sections. Substituting in equation(C. C. n. the reinforcement and the concrete parts of the section within region (2) of Fig.APPENDIX C.7. fsd and fcc are the design strengths for the structural steel.

13) Wpa. The equations for the position of the neutral axis hn are given for selected positions in the cross-sections. i ei| i =1 n (C. hn and Wpa.fcc ) + ( b .16) (C.2 tf )2 4 (c) Neutral axis outside the steel section. Major-axis bending of encased I-sections The plastic section modulus of the structural steel may be taken from tables. n with Wps.12) (C. i ez. n are given by: (a) Neutral axis in the web.Asn (2fsd .tw )( h . i are the areas of reinforcing bars within the region of depth 2hn.2(b). n = bhn 2 - hn = N pm.tf ) 4 bc hc 2 . and ez. C. n = Wpa The plastic modulus of the concrete in the region of depth from 2hn then results from Wpc. or be calculated from Wpa = ( h .9) where ei are the distances of the reinforcement bars of area As. n = Â|Asn. n = bc hn2 – Wpa. Rd . i to the relevant middle line (y-axis or z-axis). n – Wps.Aa (2fyd .10) and Wpc = (C. (b) Neutral axis in the flange.11) For the different positions of the neutral axes. The plastic section modulus of the structural steel may be taken from tables or be calculated from 220 . Rd .15) ( b .fcc ) .Asn (2fsd . h/2 – tf < hn < h/2: hn = N pm.17) Wpa. h/2 £ hn £ hc/2: Wpa. i are the distances from the middle line.2 tf )2 tw + btf ( h .fcc ) (C.19) where Asn.2 tf )(2fyd .fcc ) 2 bc fcc (C. Minor-axis bending of encased I-sections The notation is given in Fig.fcc ) 2 bc fcc + 2 tw (2fyd . hn £ h/2 – tf: hn = N pm.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 Wps = Â|As. n = tw hn2 where Asn is the sum of the area of reinforcing bars within the region of depth 2hn.14) (C.Wps 4 (C. i| i=1 n (C.fcc ) (C.tw )( h .18) (C.Asn (2fsd .fcc ) 2 bc fcc + 2 b(2fyd .Wpa . The resulting value hn should lie within the limits of the assumed region. Rd .

fcc ) 2 bfcc + 4 t(2fyd .2 tf )tw 2 4 (c) Neutral axis outside the steel section.3). changing the subscript z to y.19). n = 2 tf hn 2 + hn = N pm. or be calculated from Wpa = hn = bh2 2 .29) ( b .27) Wpa. n are given by: Wpc = (C. hn and Wpa.Asn (2fsd .9).t .fcc ) 2 hc fcc (C. n according to equation (C.22) (C.fcc ) 2 hc fcc + 4 tf (2fyd .π)(0.fcc ) 2 (C. Equations (C.Wps 4 3 with Wps according to equation (C. Wpa may be taken from tables.33) Wpc.fcc ) (C. n with Wps. n = hhn2 (b) Neutral axis in the flanges. Rd . tw/2 < hn < b/2: hn = N pm. Rd .31) (C. n = Wpa The plastic modulus of the concrete in the region of depth 2hn then results from Wpc. n = bhn – Wpc.33) may be used for circular hollow sections with good approximation by substituting h=b=d Wpc = and 2 r = d/2 – t (C. Rd .2 t )( h . hn £ tw/2: hn = N pm.26) (C.25) ( h .24) (C.fcc ) . RESISTANCE OF COMPOSITE COLUMNS TO COMPRESSION AND UNIAXIAL BENDING Wpa = ( h .Wps 4 For the different positions of the neutral axes.t . n according to equation (C.20) and hc bc 2 .π)(0. n with Wps.19). n – Wps.fcc ) 2 hc fcc + 2 h(2fyd . (C. n – Wps.APPENDIX C.29) to (C.21) (a) Neutral axis in the web.r ) . n Wpa.fcc ) + tw (2 tf . n = (b – 2t)hn2 – Wps. 221 .Asn (2fsd .30) (C.23) Wpa. For bending about the z-axis the dimensions h and b are to be exchanged as well as the subscripts z and y.Asn (2fsd .32) (C. Rd .28) Concrete-filled circular and rectangular hollow sections The following equations are derived for rectangular hollow sections with bending about the y-axis of the section (see Fig.5 h .( r + t )2 (4 .5 h .2 t ) 2 3 2 .( r + t )3 . C.Wpc .Wps 4 3 N pm.2 tf )tw 2 2 tf b2 + 4 4 (C.r (4 .Asn (2fsd . n = hc hn2 – Wpa.r ) .Wpa .fcc ) (C.Aa (2fyd .r .h)(2fyd . b/2 £ hn £ bc/2 Wpa.

2. n = 10.1 and C.0892 = 0.5).7/2 = 559 kN m From equations (C.083 = 3.3 mm.5 × 0. Rd = 6156 kN.7/2) = 504 kN m The results shown above in bold type are plotted on Fig. with notation The method of Appendix C is used to obtain the interaction polygon given in Fig. Npm. y = 1.4(a)). C. Design strengths of the materials: fyd = 355 N/mm2. bc = hc = 400 mm.228 = 14.7 = 2482 kN From equation (C.38 for the concrete-encased H section shown in Fig.37. Other data: Aa = 11 400 mm2. 10–6Wpa.083 × 355 + 3. 6. The small area of longitudinal reinforcement is neglected.13). tw = 10.77 mm3 From equation (C. Example C. Ac = 148 600 mm2.8).7 + 0.085 × 16.12).6 × 16. 10 –6Wpa.18).083 mm3 From equation (C. Rd = 1. Rd = 559 – (0.021 × (710 – 16. From equation (C.575 mm 3. the plastic section modulus for the whole area of concrete is 10–6Wpc = 43/4 – 1. The data and symbols are as in Example 6. b = 256 mm. 10–6Wpa. 222 . hn = 2482/[0. Npl.6) and (C.8 × 16.7 N/mm2.37.7). C. 10–6Wpc.10 and Figs 6.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 b ey r t ey t h y ez y ez z (b) (a) z Fig. as assumed.38. fcd = 16. Concrete-filled (a) rectangular and (b) circular hollow sections. n = 400 × 0. C. Rd = 148.228 × 355 + 14.085 mm3 From equation (C. h = 260 mm.3. 6. tf = 17.77 × 16. z = 0. Mmax.5 mm.228 mm 3.7)] = 89 mm so the neutral axis is in the web (Fig.0892 – 0. 6.11). Mpl.1: N–M interaction polygon for a column cross-section Major-axis bending From equation (C.

10–6Wpa. n = 400 × 0.42 × 16. Npm.28).7 + 0.03 kN m From equation (C.0127 × 355 + 0. RESISTANCE OF COMPOSITE COLUMNS TO COMPRESSION AND UNIAXIAL BENDING D B 13. C.38. Neutral axes at points B. Rd = 2482 kN Assuming that the neutral axis B–B intersects the flanges.0127 mm3 From equation (C.0105 × (260 – 34. hn = [2482 – 0.25).7).24). Mn.7 C B 89 D 89 C B D C B 13. Npm. and used in Example 6. Rd is the same for both axes of bending.8 × 16. C and D on the interaction polygons Minor-axis bending From equation (C.0624 × 16.7/2 = 333 kN m From equation (C.01372 – 0.01052 × (260 – 34.21). 223 .01372 + 0. Mpl. Thus.6)/4 = 0.10.APPENDIX C.7/2 = 5.575 = 15.4.0127 = 0. Mmax.6). from equation (C.7)] = 13.4).42 mm3 From equation (C. n = 34.575 × 355 + 15.7)]/[0. 10–6Wpc.0692 × (710 – 16. 6.4(b)).0624 mm3 From equation (C. Rd = 0. Rd = 0.5).6 × 0. From equation (C. Rd = 333 – 5 = 328 kN m These results are plotted on Fig. C.6) × (710 – 16.7 (a) (b) D C Fig. 10–6Wpc = 43/4 – 0.7 mm so axis B–B does intersect the flanges (Fig.

Thomas Telford. Part 1. BSI. S. London (in preparation). BS EN 1991 [Parts 1. pp. etc. 12. D. Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures. and Narayanan. London (in preparation). Part 1. 15. Johnson. BSI. London. 380–391. 2. Part 1. J. and Gardner. W. Sharooz (eds). BS EN 1993 (in preparation). Application and Use of Eurocodes.-A. 104. 16. BSI. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Structures and Buildings. Part 2: Bridges. M. (1997) Statistical calibration of safety factors for encased composite columns. D.2.1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. (2004) Designers’ Guide to EN 1992. American Society of Civil Engineers. Johnson. London. OJEC No. and Huang. BS EN 1994 (in preparation). British Standards Institution (2004) Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures. P. (2002) Designers’ Guide to EN 1990. . D. Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures. New York. BSI. European Commission (2002) Guidance Paper L (Concerning the Construction Products Directive – 89/106/EEC). 10. H. 7. British Standards Institution (2002) Actions on Structures. J.. British Standards Institution (2004) Design of Steel Structures.1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. London. BSI.1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. M. Calgaro. Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design. BS EN 1990. BSI. 13. J. L. Brussels. 6. BS EN 1994 (in preparation). Geneva. Part 1. London. Beeby. British Standards Institution (2004) Geotechnical Design. British Standards Institution (2004) Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance. L40.1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. Thomas Telford. European Commission (1989) Construction Products Directive 89/106/EEC.3. International Organization for Standardization (1997) Basis of Design for Structures – Notation – General Symbols. EC. Gulvanessian.1: Densities. (2004) Designers’ Guide to EN 1993. Part 1. BSI. Self Weight and Imposed Loads. Buckner and B. 5. London. Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete III.References 1. R. specify other types of action]. BS EN 1998 (in preparation). 4. London. ISO 3898. and Holický. and Huang. EC.. In: C. Part 1. ISO.1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. London. R. R. BSI. London. British Standards Institution (2004) Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures. British Standards Institution (2002) Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design. BS EN 1997 (in preparation). 3. British Standards Institution (2004) Design of Concrete Structures. Thomas Telford. 9. 1. (1994) Calibration of safety factors γM for composite steel and concrete beams in bending. Brussels. 193–203. A. 11 Feb. D. Nethercot. 11. 14. London. BS EN 1992 (in preparation). 8. P.

(1988) Strength of continuous beams designed to Eurocode 4. P. Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete IV. BS 5950-3-1. J. 28. Morino. R. 39. In: J. G. and Minami. Zurich. A. (1990) Application of high strength steel to composite structures. IABSE. 60. S. and Huang. (1984) Rectangular stress block for concrete. 37. K. pp. BSI. M. Technical paper S16. Sedlacek. N. F. Structutural Engineering International. London. S. Aribert. Brussels. In: J. pp. 31. 3rd edn. 5. Hajjar. June. S. R. Reports. P. Hosain. London. W. (2002) Recent developments on concrete-filled steel tube members in Japan. Annex A1: Application for Buildings. British Standards Institution (2004) Design of Steel Structures. Reports. Bradford. 903–914. M. British Standards Institution (2004) Design of Steel Structures. 23. Easterling and B. F. Johnson. and Kronenburger. Johnson. (2000) Design rotation capacity of composite joints. Structural Engineer. A. Stark. British Standards Institution (2004) Design of Steel Structures. 34. Bridges. Easterling and B. M. B. Proceedings of the IABSE. Symposium on Mixed Structures. BS 8110. (1975) Effects of creep and shrinkage in composite construction. Part 1: Code of Practice for Design and Construction. 36. including New Materials. New York. pp. BSI. and Kühn. American Society of Civil Engineers. Johnson. Report 75-12. Part 1-8: Design of Joints. 30. P-125/88.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 17. 65B. BS EN 1993 (in preparation). P. D. and Döinghaus. BSI. Trahair. Müller. P. W. K. 38. BS EN 1991 (in preparation). London. B. and Fan. Drafting Committee for Eurocode 4 (unpublished). Part 1-5: Plated Structural Elements. 27–34. Part 1-3: Cold Formed Thin Gauge Members and Sheeting. 26.. 76. S. J. 644–655. 226 . (2002) High performance steel and high performance concrete in composite structures. 96–101. BS EN 1990. M. W. BS EN 1993 (in preparation). 25–29. BSI. London. Hajjar. American Society of Civil Engineers. London. Ruhr-Universität. 29. 20. Structural Engineer. British Standards Institution (2004) Actions on Structures. B. R. BSI. Zurich. British Standards Institution (2002) Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design. 22. Hegger. J. and Nethercot. 2. 27. Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete IV. BS EN 13918. Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete IV. 32. Institute for Structural Engineering. 59–64. London. 294–298. Johnson. Structural Engineer. and Hanswille. BS EN 1993 (in preparation). D. Easterling and B. 891–902. 109. R. Shahrooz (eds). Anderson. S. Vol. pp... R.. C. (1987) Shrinkage-induced curvature in cracked composite flanges of composite beams. H. D. BSI. R. according to EC4: Part 2. 21. R. 24. 33–44. P. R. Bochum. London. Spon. Hoffmeister. British Standards Institution (1998) Welding – Studs and Ceramic Ferrules for Arc Stud Welding. Collins. S. M. British Standards Institution (1997) Structural Use of Concrete. London. J. 78. 19. 2nd edn. Wakabayashi. P. New York. Part 1-5: Thermal Actions. (1991) Local buckling and moment redistribution in Class 2 composite beams. ECCS TC11 (1999) Design of Composite Joints for Buildings. 1. P. M. J. W. British Standards Institution (1990) Code of Practice for Design of Simple and Continuous Composite Beams. M. J. BSI. 35. Johnson. Johnson. Hosain. Hosain. and Buckby. (2001) The Behaviour and Design of Steel Structures to BS 5950. Structural Engineering International.-M. BSI. (1998) Analyses for creep of continuous steel and composite bridge beams. Ch. and Chen. Shahrooz (eds). 33. European Convention for Constructional Steelwork. Bode. Brussels. London. G. Hajjar. (2002) High strength materials in composite structures. London. (1986) Composite Structures of Steel and Concrete. H. 25. J. 18. Shahrooz (eds). 72–77.. Haensel. In: J. (1995) Composite bridge beams of mixed-class cross-section. New York. IABSE. F. M. American Society of Civil Engineers.

Johnson. P. (1982) Plastic rotation of composite beams. (1998) Zum Biegedrillknicken von Stahlverbundträgern. British Standards Institution (2000) Design of Steel Bridges. Aribert. 46. (2003) Cracking in concrete tension flanges of composite T-beams – tests and Eurocode 4. Brussels. 47. Comparison of more accurate methods with Eurocode 4. (2002) Perforated shear connector for composite steel and concrete beams. Ansourian. 59. and Hosain. Roik. F. 51. 61. Part 2. (1976) Applicability of simple plastic theory to continuous composite beams. 52. London. R. R. G. Thomas Telford. Part 1–2: Structural Fire Design. and Price. Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete IV. 167– 172. 43. 367–378. including New Materials. Hosain. M. University of Bochum. Structural Engineer.6. 53. J. (1990) Strength and stiffness of shear connections for discrete U-frame action in composite plate girders. Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete IV. British Standards Institution (2004) Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures. W. Ascot. and May. (2002) Lateral distortional buckling of partially encased composite beams without concrete slab. P. and Fan. New York. 643–659. and Hope-Gill. Easterling and B. Report RSII 2-674102-88. Part 1. J. R. (1991) Distortional lateral buckling of continuous composite beams. and Anderson. 127–143. In: J. Amsterdam. Johnson. 61. and Kina.. BSI. Easterling and B. London.. Part 2. W. (1990) Design of composite beams with a partial shear connection [in French].. R. D. G. Johnson. R. C. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. New York. 91. Lindner. 60. Lawson.. R.. Shahrooz (eds). R. Krpata. 41. 48. British Standards Institution (1994) Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures. 73. Johnson. (1990) Background to Eurocode 4 clause 4. P. J. K. In: J. P. Chung. S. M.. 68. N. Composite Steel Structures. J.17. Ahmed. N. Machacek. 50. 53. R. 255–276.2 and Annex B. Reports. N. Hajjar. and Svitakova. IABSE. Hajjar. H. W. Structural Engineer. American Society of Civil Engineers. Steel Construction Institute. (1972) Vertical shear in continuous composite beams. BSI. M. 60. IABSE. Part 1: Basis of Design. London. Johnson. (1991) Recent research on stub-girder floor systems. 123–132. Zurich. (1982) Tension-field action in composite plate girders. pp. Symposium on Mixed Structures. (2002) Lateral torsional buckling of composite beams. M. G. F. Easterling and B. M. pp.-P. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. In: J. London. 60. S. BSI. (1991) Partial shear connection in composite beams for buildings. 55. including New Materials. Stahlbau. Sept. pp. Publication 068. T. 91. M. P. (1992) Tests on composite beams with large web openings. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. 105–116. 56. W. 117–128. 42. P.1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. Hanswille. Shahrooz (eds). BS 5400: Part 3. and Molenstra. J. Allison.REFERENCES 40. (1990) Economical shear connection with high fatigue strength. R. Lawson. Elsevier. 131–161. 189–205. Hajjar. Reports. 227 . and Molenstra. S. M. R. 386–392. 108. DD ENV 1994. 679–704. In: S. 81. P. 70. Bochum. Symposium on Mixed Structures.. 215–220. N. 54. Johnson. F. M. Johnson. P. Hosain.). Studnicka. M. (1987) Design for Openings in the Webs of Composite Beams. K. 1–7. F. Journal of the Structural Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers. New York. Part 2. M. J. 45. R. (1993) Designers’ Handbook to Eurocode 4. Brussels. M. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Hanswille. 58. R. Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete IV. American Society of Civil Engineers. Andrä. Part 2. C. and Budassis. I. M. Lee (ed. Shahrooz (eds). A. Lindner. Hosain. Johnson. K. Structural Engineer. M. pp. 44. and Münich. D. Hanswille. 49. 7. Zurich. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. American Society of Civil Engineers. BS EN 1994 (in preparation). 57. 29–34. and Willmington. A. M. M. P. R.

80. Kuhlmann. Part 2. and Yuan. 78. 228 . and Johnson. G. Blackwell. Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete II. R. and Oehlers. 71. M. K. B. pp. A. T. Elliott. 65. 1. and Yuan. M. Easterling and W. British Standards Institution (2000) Code of Practice for Design in Simple and Continuous Construction: Hot Rolled Sections. Oehlers. American Society of Civil Engineers. Ascot. J. D. and Kina. 84. 76. 27–42. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Structures and Buildings. 83. BSI. 71. Report EC4/8/88. 989–1021. and Cunze Oliveira Lanna. Shahrooz (eds). G. 252–263. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. London. 72. Najafi. Johnson. Columns. 140. 66. and Johnson. 3rd edn. (1987) The strength of stud shear connections in composite beams. 59. Roik. Johnson. University of Warwick. 44–48. BSI. G. J. 147–170. B. 64. 99. S. Part 2. British Standards Institution (1987) Design of Composite Bridges. Roik. 68. (1998) Models and design rules for studs in troughs of profiled sheeting. and Slutter. American Society of Civil Engineers. R. Johnson. BS EN 1993 (in preparation). (2004) Composite Structures of Steel and Concrete: Beams. In: W. R. Roddis (eds). pp. D. Hanswille. Oxford. BSI. (1991) Statistical Analysis of Pushout Tests on Stud Connectors in Composite Steel and Concrete Structures. (1989) Eurocode 4. Journal of Constructional Steelwork Research. W. K. BS EN ISO 14555. 73. (1998) Existing rules and new tests for studs in troughs of profiled sheeting. Structural Engineer. 81. BSI. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Structures and Buildings. (2002) Behaviour of horizontally lying studs with longitudinal shear force. Publication 060. P. R. 81–97. F. Li. Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete IV. K.. Johnson. Clause 6. K. S. E. Hanswille. P.. W. University of Bochum. R. D. 69. Delft. Roik. 63.. (2000) Designing composite steel beams with precast concrete hollow core slabs. 68. W. and van Hove. 74. London. R. 438–449. K. 65B. W. (1982) Design for longitudinal shear in composite L-beams. TNO Building and Construction Research. Stahlbau. (1993) Stability of continuous composite plate girders with U-frame action. M. P. S. 73. R. 128. (1990) Push tests on studs welded through profiled steel sheeting. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Structures and Buildings. (1991) Push Tests on Stud Connectors in Normal and Highstrength Concrete. 327–332. 75. U. Frames. D. Johnson. R. (1977) Composite beams with formed metal deck. P. 128. PhD thesis. Structural Engineer. (1981) Analysis and design for longitudinal shear in composite T-beams. K. J. BS 5400: Part 5. D. Hajjar. A. BS 5950-1. Hosain. and Rackham. Steel Construction Institute. Lawson. Engineering Journal of the American Institute of Steel Construction. London. Bochum. 67. London. R. and Oehlers. New York. British Standards Institution (1998) Welding – Arc Stud Welding of Metallic Materials. A. M. (1989) Design of Haunched Composite Beams in Buildings. Warwick. J. H. Johnson. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Fisher. M. British Standards Institution (2004) Design of Steel Structures. Stark. A. 244–251. Grant. 15. 153–168.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 62. U.2: Stud Connectors. and Breuninger. R. A. In: J. (1990) Solution for the lateral torsional buckling problem of composite beams [in German]. W. 70. P. J. Mottram. 187–197. Gothenburg. Report BI-91-163. 139–149. J. 187–193. and Chen. M. (1993) Shear connection in composite beams. Easterling and B. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Structures and Buildings.. New York. and Nethercot. and Applications in Building. P. H. R.3. Report 91:6. and Bergmann. J. P. P. and Cederwall. 82. Lam. (1992) End-plate connections. S. 77. (1990) Design methods for composite columns with unsymmetrical cross-sections. Chalmers Institute of Technology. Part 2: Bridges. 79. J. Lawson.

98. 99. Kilpatrick. (1975) Partial-interaction design of composite beams. and Lawson. 92. W. Bjorhovde (eds). J. BSI. P. London (in preparation). A. R. R. (1995) Composite Steel and Concrete Structural Members – Fundamental Behaviour. 81. Moore. and Hughes. Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures. J. University of Bochum. Hanswille. P-54/82. Elsevier. and Bradford. Publication 076. L. W. 88. Delft. (2004) Designers’ Guide to EN 1993. London (in preparation). Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. K. 101. and Johnson. Clause 5. 103. London. Eurocode 4: Design of Composite Structures. and Rangan. 105. M.REFERENCES 85. In: J. (2000) Resistance of stud shear connectors to fatigue. London. Steel Construction Institute. British Standards Institution (1994) Code of Practice for Design of Floors with Profiled Steel Sheeting. R. London (in preparation). Q. 90. BS 5950-4. M. Wyatt. Randl. BSI. 93. Cracking of Concrete. (2003) Cracking in concrete flanges of composite T-beams – tests and Eurocode 4. and Bergmann. R. British Standards Institution (2004) Draft National Annex to BS EN 1990: Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design. Publication 213. (1989) Design Guide on the Vibration of Floors. and Bridge. (2002) Influence of concrete cracking on the serviceability limit state design of steel-reinforced concrete composite bridges: tests and models. Part 2: Bridges. Wheeler. Journal of Constructional Steel Research. 69–80. pp. M. In: P. Shahrooz (eds). B. Part 2. W. A. P. 97. TNO Building and Construction Research. Dowling. Bochum. Part 1-9: Fatigue Strength of Steel Structures. British Standards Institution (1992) Guide to Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibration in Buildings. Martinez Calzon (ed. Johnson. B. New York. A. (1992) Lateral Stability of Steel Beams and Columns – Common Cases of Restraint. A.). 106. 441–457. B. and Cunze Oliveira Lanna. (1990) The Midspan Deflection of Composite Steel-and-concrete Beams under Static Loading at Serviceability Limit State. P. J. (1999) Tests on high-strength concrete-filled tubular steel columns. Nethercot. (1982) Widths of initial cracks in concrete tension flanges of composite beams. A. Composite Bridges – Proceedings of the 3rd International Meeting. Steel Construction Institute. G. (1995) Verifying the performance of standard ductile connections for semi-continuous steel frames. Johnson. G. (1992) Composite columns. Atkins. Madrid. (1989) Report on Eurocode 4. British Standards Institution (2004) Design of Steel Structures. 100. F. 29–34. Roik. Steel Construction Institute. (1983) Cracking in concrete tension flanges of composite T-beams. E. BS EN 1993 (in preparation). S. 96. W. D. R. 65. R. J. London. Report EC4/4/88. Hosain. ACI Structural Journal. 584–595. I. 96-S29. and van Hove. and Way. F. S. Ascot. A. Structural Engineer. Ascot. Thomas Telford. A. Spanish Society of Civil Engineers. Oxford. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Structures and Buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers. Structural Engineer. D. (2002) Thin-walled steel tubes filled with high strength concrete in bending.3. 110. Couchman. Part 1-8: Design of Joints. 86. E. Ascot. and Partners (2004) Designers’ Guide to EN 1994. London. Johnson. Elsevier. D. and Johnson. Hajjar. 95. 53. Publication 093. Proceedings of the IABSE. 305–311. 268–274. Easterling and B. 61B. May. K. Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete IV. B. Harding and R. 104. Thomas Telford. 91. T. V. M. 102. 229 . T. M. BS 6472. R. and Allison. Stark. M. 9–16. November. M.. pp. BSI. Constructional Steel Design – An International Guide. Gomez Navarro. P. W. M. pp. 261–278. 94. 323–337. BSI. In: J. and May. P. Report BI-90-033. (1998) Joints in Steel Construction – Composite Connections. 89. R. 87. I. Roik. Oehlers. Johnson. 107. P. R. Bose. 56. Structural Engineer. (1978) Inelastic analysis of biaxially restrained columns. 443–469. 101–116.

(1991) Partial shear connection design of composite slabs. 116. Oehlers. Couchman.3: Composite Floors with Profiled Steel Sheet. (2000) Composite Slabs and Beams Using Steel Decking: Best Practice for Design and Construction. Department of Civil Engineering. London. and Mullett. W. TNO Building and Construction Research. prEN 12812. 15. In: Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete V [Proceedings of a Conference. European Convention for Constructional Steelwork. Bryan. 118. ECCS Working Group 7. G. 2–17. 111. Kruger National Park. E. J. 112. 2004]. Report: Semi-rigid Behaviour of Civil Engineering Structural Connections. (1999) Theoretical solutions relating to partial shear connection of steel– concrete composite beams and joints. M. D. Aribert. L. 23–47. 119. (1999) Non-linear Calculations of Composite Sections and Semi-continuous Joints. Report BI-91-106. and Brekelmans. 110. 117. TNO Building and Construction Research. Part 1: Method of Test at Ambient Temperature. 124. British Standards Institution (2004) Actions on Structures. 121. Journal of Constructional Steel Research. I. W. pp. P. (1990) Background Report to Eurocode 4 (Continuation of Report EC4/7/88). E. Delft. Huber. Chapter 10 and Section 10. Steel Construction Institute. B. 123. J. Elliott. Standard 97/102975DC. Sydney. Johnson. BSI. Publication 300. 7. Bode. London. BSI. van Hove. M. (1989) Splitting induced by shear connectors in composite beams. Steel Construction Journal. American Society of Civil Engineers. London. 115. Bode. and Nethercot.9 Composite Slab. New York (in preparation). Part 1-6: Actions During Execution. 106. Report SR 91033. BSI. Technical Note 116. Construction Industry Research and Information Association. Kaiserslautern. R. H. B. 341–362. H. 109. D. (1990) Plastic design of continuous composite slabs. H. 114. J. Reports. (1991) Experimental Research on the CF70/0. (1984) Design of Profiled Sheeting as Permanent Formwork. BS EN 1991 (in preparation). Patrick. University of Nottingham. Ascot. BS EN 10002. and the use of non-standard test data. 120. P. M. Delft. I. and Storck. Ernst. Association for International Cooperation and Research in Steel–Concrete Composite Structures. and Leach.16. Stark. W. London. Luxembourg. R.6 (1998) Longitudinal Shear Resistance of Composite Slabs: Evaluation of Existing Tests.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 108. British Standards Institution (2001) Tensile Testing of Metallic Materials.1-7. Journal of the Structural Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers. 24. S. J. Berlin. D. COST-C1 (1997) Composite Steel–concrete Joints in Braced Frames for Buildings. 230 . J. (2004) The m–k and partial-interaction models for shear resistance of composite slabs. Brussels. 467–472. and Sauerborn. P. Performance Requirements and General Design. G. 113. University of Kaiserslautern. 115. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. (1990) A new partial shear connection strength model for composite slabs. (1991) Non-composite Flexural and Shear Tests on CF70 Decking. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Steel and Composite Structures. British Standards Institution (1997) Falsework. 122. M.

elastic. 110 uncracked 36 see also cracking of concrete analysis. cracking of concrete. 36. columns. 36. 30. buckling. 31. vibration. types of 6. 44–54 hogging 45. 36–8 second-order 22–4. of cross-sections see beams. 167–9. 28. 91. National see National Annex application rules 5 axes 7. 94–6 in columns 34. 121. 38–9. 134. 105. 87–8 critical 42–3. 66. 187 see also reinforcement Annex. 174 quasi-permanent 33. 36 elastic 29–36. 58. 34 shear connection for see shear connection shear resistance of 89 stresses in 136–7 see also analysis. imperfections. 130 characteristic 33. 69 effective 43. 92 secondary 9. 106 . 96–7 Class 1 or 2 9. 81 in frames 32 L-section 72 of non-uniform section 4. 110–11. 50. 34. 87. 121. shear …. 115 redistribution of 15. 89–90 non-uniform 43 sudden change in 42 see also slabs. 121. 156–7 elastic–plastic 105 first-order 22–3. 70 Class 4 9. analysis.Index Note: references to ‘beams’ and to ‘columns’ are to composite members beams 41–67 bending resistance of 39. 180–1 cross-sections of 41–2. 39. 57. 164. 130. 32. 39. 56. 34. 43. 88. interaction. 207 Class 3 9. slabs. 45. 92 second-order 22–3. deflections. fire. 34–7. 134. webs bending moments elastic critical 58–65. 43. 163–4 action effect see actions. global 6. 209 effects of 6 independent 104. 59. 52–3. 124–5. 44 asymmetric 37–8 classification of 28. 145 flexural stiffness of 32 haunched 73–4. 108. 67. 36. 169 for profiled sheeting 163 non-linear 33–4 of frames 23–4. 50. 138. 34 horizontal 27 indirect 9 see also fatigue adhesives 17 analysis. 139 concentrated 36. 128. effects of actions 6 combinations of 32–3. 50–4. 130 concrete-encased 4. 124. 134. 32–4. composite. 88 sagging 44–50. 90 elastic analysis of 44. 79. 54. 49. 68. 149 rigid-plastic 33–4. 117 primary 9. 156 cracked 13. resistance to. etc. 27–8 anchorage 76. 90 for composite slabs 21. 129. 54. 90–1. 128. 37–40. 129. concrete curved in plan 44 design procedure for 47–8 effective width of flanges of 28–9. 105. cantilevers. 136 frequent 33. 88–9. 21–40. 162.

profiled steel definitions 6 deflections 128–30. 193 unpropped 13. 63. 113 crack inducers 193. 118 cross-sections of interaction diagram for 104. 74. 121 in columns 108 see also modular ratio. effective see beams. 130. shrinkage of concrete connections see joints connector modulus see shear connection. 57–66. 137–8 due to shrinkage 130. 137 due to slip 137 limits to 129. 168 and global analysis 31–2. modulus of. 115 second-order effects in 110. 41. 55. 71. 73. 129. 173 deformation. columns curvature of beams 49 decking. modulus of for concrete 14. 79. 132 cantilevers 58. 39. holes for 44 bolts. 118 see also buckling. 90. 112. 115. elasticity. imperfections. 37. 29–31. 34–6. 137–8 of beams 128. 89 see also loads. composite bridges. 130. slabs Designers’ Guides 1. 220–3 concrete-filled 14. 106–7. 191. 108. 89. creep of concrete. 217–23 non-symmetrical 103–5 section moduli for 219–21 design method for 105–11 eccentricity of loading for 107 effective length of 103 effective stiffness of 28. 205 properties of 13–16. columns. 113 lateral–torsional 24. slabs. stiffness of construction 3. 158–9. 86 effective length see columns effective width see beams. 67. 107. 105–6. 86. 10 Class of section see Beams. stiffness of 182 bond see shear connection box girders 4. 106. 117 concrete-encased 4. 100 breadth of flange. 136. 136. 91. 120. 80. 45. 111. 157–8 of composite slabs 168–70. 3. 135 Construction Products Directive 10 contraflexure. 29 232 . shear connection. 187–8. 218. 162–3. 129–30 control of load-induced 134–5. slabs. 108 for steels 16. elastic critical. 80.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 bolts. 120 British Standards 5 BS 5400 80. 39. points of 42 cover 19. 131–6. loads. 71. 114 transverse loading on 24. beams in 68. fracture of 143 bolts. fracture of durability 19. residual compression members see columns concrete lightweight-aggregate 13. 110. 55–7. 195 cracking of concrete 121. basis of 9–11 design. 164 see also beams. high-rise 104. 138 early thermal 133 uncontrolled 131–2 creep of concrete 15. 85. 119. 1. modulus of critical length 42 cross-sections see beams. 107. 111–12 moment–shear interaction in 107. 10 ductility see reinforcement. 50. 115 squash load of 106 steel contribution ratio for 104. 164 buckling 22–4 in columns 23. 128 bi-axial bending in 105. 29. 105–6. 91. 187–8 BS 5950 34. 116–17 shear in 112. 49. 193. 34. 15–16. 195 precast 80. Class … Codes of Practice see British Standards columns 103–119. 196 BS 8110 14–15. 108. 84. 209 CEN (Comité Européen Normalisation). 112. 39–40. 138. 93–6. metal see sheeting. 139 restraint-induced 132–3. 36–7. cross-sections of of reinforcement 44 of webs in shear 24. 128 calibration 14–15. 104. 114. elastic critical buildings. 168. 93. 36–7. effects of eigenvalue see load. 77. 172 methods of 9 propped 78. 203–10 local 24. 78. 28. 105–7. 168. 128. 221 creep in 31. 219 slenderness of 107–8. elastic critical elasticity. methods of see beams. bending moments. elasticity. 110 high-strength steel in 44 load introduction in 104. 59. 147 strength classes for 13 strength of 10 stress block for 14–15 see also cracking of concrete. 174 of profiled sheeting 163–4. 165. imposed 9. composite effect of action see actions. stresses. 90. 168 loads 30. 80 bracing to bottom flanges 60. 147. 162–3. 131 design.

193 EN 1991 3. welded see reinforcement. 143. 163. 22. 72–6. 209 equilibrium. 115. 91. partial 2. 181 fatigue 11. 162. 23. 147 unbraced 4. global. 103. static 11 Eurocodes 1 European Standard 5 see also EN … examples bending and vertical shear 55–6 composite beam. 191–4. 106. 34 National Annexes 1–3. 144–5. 149 simple see nominally pinned L-beams 78. effective 103 limit states serviceability 28. 148–9 contact-plate 142. for fatigue 120 see also actions m–k method 165–9. 68. 190 factors. 35. 181–5 composite slab 170–7. 179–80 EN 1993-1-9 119–20. imperfections geometrical data 10 see also imperfections haunches see beams. 108. 119 EN 1998 3 EN ISO 14555 72 ENV 1994-1-1 15. 19. 175. 96 and materials 14–17 233 . 205 EN 1993-1-3 16. 59–61. 136–9 composite column 113–9. 55 EN 1993-1-8 16. 145. 174 EN 1993-1-1 21. 49. 150–4. slabs flow charts 25–7. 58. 163–4. 119–20. 136. 119–26 finite-element methods 33 fire. 143. 153 partial-strength 2. properties of 13–17 see also concrete. 32. 33. 34. 122. 63. 32. 64–5. partial 43. haunched hole-in-web method 38–9. 10. 179–85 rotation capacity of 144–5. 190. 129. 162. 132 and materials 13–16. combination 32 factors. 204–6 frames. re-usable 129 see also sheeting. 21–2. composite 6 braced 32. 73. 136.INDEX EN 1090 80 EN 1990 3. 131. 28 beam-to-column 108. reduction 58. 128. composite. 222–3 composite joint 147–59. modulus of moments see bending moments. 121 modulus of elasticity see elasticity. 144–5. 38. 149 rigid 136. 91 and resistances 28. 180 end-plate 141. 117 interaction. 32. 34. 15 EN 1994-1-2 57. 109 forces. tests on materials. 5. 211–14 see also slabs. conversion 10 factors. 175 and serviceability 131. 34. 81–2. 105. 147–59. 86. 96. 141–59 bending resistance of 150–4 classification of 142. 147. concrete see beams. 143. 143. 22. 37. 103. 134 EN 1994-2 4. 198. 24–7. 174. 204. damage equivalent 123 factors. 45–9. 168. 172 EN 1992-1-1 5 and detailing 77. 172 and beams 61. 100–1 transverse reinforcement 82 execution see construction exposure classes 19. 131 factors. resistance to 57 flanges. 142 rotational stiffness of 142. 188 length. 168–9 EN 1993-1-5 28. 156. 110. 60–2. inverted-U. 51–4 imperfections 21–2. full 44 interaction. 176–7 see also shear connection ISO standards 5–6 joints 16. torsion nationally determined parameter 1. 130. 181 full-strength 22. 80. steel mesh. profiled steel foundations 11 frame. 72. 194. 127–9. 127–39 ultimate 41–126 loads dynamic 161–2 elastic critical 23. 114–15 imposed. 39. 108. 122 EN 1993-2 123 EN 1994-1-1. continuous 84–100. 145. 89–91. 177. buckling. 143. internal 105 formwork. 113. 90. 128 and actions 32. 141–5. welded mesh modular ratio 29–31. 156 semi-continuous 22 semi-rigid 22. scope of 3–5. 131. 147. 34. 194–201 effective width 29 elastic resistance to bending 101–3 fatigue 124–6 lateral–torsional buckling 66 reduction factor for strength of stud 76 resistance to hogging bending 50–4 shear connection 69–70. 108 see also analysis. 145 modelling of 143–7 nominally pinned 22.

100–1. 119. longitudinal. etc. 171–3. composite sheeting. 89–93. 188 partial 43. 164. 175 γF. 98. shear. 172–3 effective area of 45 embossments on (dimples in). 129. slabs. 101. 138 spacing of 132–3 transverse 68. 50. fatigue. for actions 123 plastic theory see analysis. slabs. 130 see also cover. 172 depth of 162 design of 162–4. 177 brittle failure of 162. 81–3. tests on redistribution see bending moments. 45–50. 15–16. 101. 39. haunched strain hardening in 45 welded mesh (fabric). 103 spacing of 47–8. composite. slabs. 10. 103. for materials and resistances 7. 81–4 in columns 112 see also shear connection. in Eurocodes 2. 187–91 types of 68 see also studs. 173–4. 67–81. etc. methods of prying 150. shear connectors. durability. 145 equilibrium method for 48–9 interpolation method for 47 see also anchorage. rotation capacity 34–5. 10 partial factors 2. 122 shear heads 4 shear lag see slabs. columns. in joints 39. 119 and serviceability 131. 50. 54. 45. 193 concentrated loads on 164 cracking in 168. profiled steel 17. 72–6. longitudinal shear connectors 17. 165–6. 191 flexibility of see stiffness of non-ductile 47. 166–7. in beams. 191–3 fixing of 83 in compression 45 loading on 162–3 properties of 171. 190 serviceability see limit states shakedown 121 shear see columns. 97. 97. 144. 132 in beams 52. 79. composite 161–77 as diaphragms 162 bending resistance of 165. composite shrinkage of concrete 15 and cracking 15. 170. 149. 134 effects of 9. 212 and cracking 135 and shear connection 68. 91–2. 128 γM. 122. 118. 153–4 and bending moment 55–7 see also buckling. 48. 145 in columns 104. rigid-plastic plate girders 80. welded shear flow 42–3. 162. fatigue. 176 design of 44 detailing of 76–81 for composite slabs 165–8 full 45. 112. 141 see also beams plates. vertical. longitudinal 21. composite shear. composite reinforcing steel 15–16. composite 4 prestressing 4. separation 6. 112–13 in compression 44 in haunches see beams. 78–9. 69. 101–3. 27. 155 at joints 147–8 fracture of. 80. 136–8. 193–4 degree of 46. longitudinal reference standards 5 reinforcement 131. 131–5. 45. 13. 34 see also beams. slip. 36. 183 and execution 78 by bond or friction 17. 161–2. 60. 139 minimum area of 13. 30. bending resistance of. 131–2. etc. 77. 57 bi-axial loading of 76 ductile 46. 80–1. 68–70. 182–3 anchorage of 42. 164 see also joints safety factors see partial factors section modulus 7 sections see beams. 112. 175 234 . 181 tests on 181. 158 see also deflections slabs. 58. global. 152 push tests see shear connectors. effective width of shear. 6. 191. 44. reinforcement. 49–50. shear. 192 as transverse reinforcement 83–4. slabs. 99 bearing length for 162. 111–2. 77. 57. 37. 206 in columns 106. transverse. 193. 30–1. 50. shear–bond test see m–k test shear connection 42–3. 187. 162. 69. deflection. 166–7. 70–1. 33 principles 5–6 propping see construction. 99–100. 80. 195 see also buckling. 204–5 stiffness of 44. punching see slabs. 67–8. 123. 112. 169 notation see symbols notes. 58. 162. 39. shear. 17. composite.DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1 and partial factors 10. 119 resistances 10. 67–9. 85. composite shear. 9. 104. 175 effective thickness of 43. 44. 81. 167. 77. 138. 67. slab. vertical 21.

106. global analysis. form-reinforced see slabs. profiled steel slabs. relative 58. 49. shear connectors subscripts 7 supports. 107–8.INDEX effective width of 43. inverted-U uplift see separation vibration 128. 168. 132 tension stiffening 45. 36. 162. 44 see also hole-in-web method. vertical web stiffeners 60 welding. slabs. 141. 161 in solid slabs 70–2 tension in 72 weld collar of 17. 122. 72. longitudinal 6. shear connection. 103. 23. composite through-deck welding see welding. 97–8. 130–1 webs 66–7. yielding of steel steel contribution ratio see columns steelwork. harmonized 10 steel see reinforcing steel. 172–3. deflections. 125. unbraced symbols 6–7. 105 squash load see columns. detailing of. composite slenderness ratios. etc. columns. EN … standards. 169 trusses 24 tubes. 74. 46. 44. 66. 168 width. steel see columns. lying 79 studs. composite slabs. 16. 191–8. 175–7. 188 and deflections 129. effects of structural steels 16. 166. 32–3. 144. 187–8. 121. 169. cross-sections of slenderness. 139 testing see shear connectors. 111 stub girders 42 studs. squash load of standards see British Standards. 34. 176. limiting see beams. slabs. effects of 9. through-deck 72. flexural see beams. precast. 132 available 46 capacity 67–9. concrete-filled U-frame see frame. 204–10 holes in 4. 130. 38–40. 180–4 encased 4. 206–9 slip. concrete reinforcement in 68. 211–15 partial-connection design of 166–8. 81. sheeting. slabs. 81. 136–7 yield line theory 151–2 235 . 191–4. 99 see also fatigue. 211–15 vertical shear in 166. 24 see also beams. shear. 44. 134–5. 190–1 slip strain 46 software for EN 1994 23. 164–5 flexural stiffness of 203–4 longitudinal shear in 165–8. 164. strength 10 see also resistance stresses excessive 128 fatigue 121–4 residual 22. 198 partial shear connection in 39. 191. 191–201. 175 see also anchorage. composite worked examples see examples yielding of steel and deflections 130. 211–12. friction at see shear connection sway frames see frames. 214–15 punching shear in 168 reinforcement in 132. 68. effective see beams. 143 temperature. 83. 79 splitting in 72. 49. 201 thickness of 132. 111. 122 stress resultant see actions. 188. 167–8 serviceability of 168–70 shear span for 166 tests on 165–7. structural steels. through-deck torsion 44. welded 46 length after welding 71 resistance of in composite slabs 72–6. 134. 60–1. 96. damage equivalent 119. 189 see also concrete. 128. 78–9. m–k method. protection of see durability stiffness coefficient 179–185 stiffness. stresses in stress range.

- Doc Lisboa 2011
- Designers’ Guide to en 1997-1
- JPH
- BIM Project Execution Planning Guide and Templates_V2.1
- Catalogo Tecnico Intec 1363278316
- Tese_FUND_FEUC_2012_ref Fund Microestac Ligacao Aco Calda Betao
- Catálogo chapas expandidas
- Guia Bim AsBEA Fasciculo 2
- Guia Bim AsBEA Fasciculo 1
- INSTITUCIONAL COPLAS 2013
- Intro Princ Tecn
- JPH
- apresentação_SILE2011 - 1 - Muttoni
- BETNIVEL - FICHA TÉCNICA
- lista_normas_revista_metálica
- BR Manual Alvenaria
- BR-ABECE-Recomendações n conformidade concreto
- BR_Execução de estruturas de aço_praticas recomendadas_ABCEM
- Suportes de Cobertura ArcelorMittal Construção Portugal_Set_2010
- Guidelines for Seismic Design of Liquid Storage Tanks
- 59599078-Eurocodigos-publicados
- Waterproofing in Tunnels
- Guia para utilização da norma NP EN 206-1

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot useful- Designs Guide to en 1994-2, Eurocode 4
- Designers Guide to EN1994-2 Eurocode 4
- Designers’ Guide to Eurocode 1 - Actions on Bridges
- Designers-Guide-to-EN1992-1-1-and-EN1992-1-2
- Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures
- Designers' Guide to en 1998
- Designers’ guide to EN 1994-2 Rules for Bridges(2006)
- Designers’ guide to EN 1992-2 Concrete Bridges (2007)
- Designers' Guide to en 1993-1-1 Eurocode 3 - Design of Steel Structures
- Eurocode 4 Design Composite Steel Concrete Structures
- Eurocode 7 Geotechnical Design-General Rules-Guide to en 1997-1
- Designers Guide to EN1992-2 Eurocode 2
- Designers guide to EC3
- Designers’ guide to EN 1993-2 Steel Bridges (2007).pdf
- Composite Beams & Columns to Eurocode 4
- Composite beam design to Eurocode 4 Hüseyin Gören
- Designers' Guide to Eurocode
- Designers' Guide to en 1992-1-1 and en 1992-1-2
- steel_design
- Example Composite Floor Slab
- Eurocode Guide - Online
- Eurocode Design Example Book
- Ccip Concise Ec2
- Eurocode Load Combinations for Steel Structures 2010
- Design Calculations in Geotechnics
- Designers' Guide to Eurocode 8 Design of Bridges for Earthquake Resistance (Designers' Guides to the Eurocodes)
- Ccip Worked Examples Ec2
- Designers’ Guide to Eurocode 7 Geothechnical Design
- DESIGN_OF_STRUCTURAL_CONNECTIONS_TO _EUROCODE_3
- THE BEHAVIOUR AND DESIGN OF STEEL STRUCTURES TO EC3 (4th EDITION)
- Designers’ guide to EN 1994-1-1 Composite Steel and Concrete